We can never escape the free speech discourse. On the 1st of April, Scotland instilled a new hate crime law, dealing with issues of prejudice and “stirring up hatred.” It focuses on protecting people based on their age, disability, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity. Unsurprisingly, Elon Musk (along with many others) was not championing this law, arguing it infringes on free speech.
In any democracy, free speech is invaluable and should be preserved, but it does not instil an arbitrary right to cause harm. When an act of discrimination transcends an individual and is directed towards an identity it becomes not an isolated occurrence, but a public matter that we should acknowledge.
Of course, there is truth that criminalising this behaviour is not always useful. It does nothing to cure our modern fear of hyper-surveillance and instead expresses that discrimination should be responded to with aggressive punishment, rather than techniques of mediation and education. A transphobe is not likely to reconsider their views when labelled a bigoted criminal – if, instead, permitted to understand and empathise with trans issues, there may be a different outcome. It’s simple, in the context of cancel culture, to view individuals as existing on a black-and-white axis of morality and evil. However, zero-tolerance approaches do nothing to facilitate nuanced social discussions; we live in a complicated web of identity and power that produces people who are typically not entirely right or wrong. Thankfully, the law contains a caveat; behaviour or material is not interpreted as threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it includes dialogue or criticism of matters relating to a marginalised identity. So, we’re not in Orwell’s 1984’s just yet! There remains space for discussion.
J. K Rowling and MP Joanna Cherry have taken to Twitter asserting that the law is a threat to cis-gender women. I can empathise with the traumatic misogyny experienced by Rowling and the fear thus instilled in her. Yet, the reality is that the very existence of trans identities constitutes a new establishment of freedom; to be transgender is to transgress binary limitations. If Rowling defines free speech as the ability to group trans people with sex offenders or misgender and bully others, then I’m not sure that free speech is all it is cracked up to be. The tendency to view another group’s emancipation as a threat to your security is not new, but is tiring and regressive. A hate crime law is not an explicit threat to anyone, but rather a sign that we can move beyond rigid structures and progress to an equal, meditative society.
“First Minister Humza Yousaf and Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville join families at a Book Bug session at Drumbrae Library” by Scottish Government is licensed under CC BY 2.0.