In Scotland and Malta, bad news for Christians

Two important stories out of Europe, covered by The Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians in Europe, an essential organization that operates out of Vienna. First, Scotland:

The Scottish Justice Committee has proposed a new hate crime bill, which extends the current hate crime law covering race, to include other “protected characteristics” such as religion, sexual orientation, and transgender identity. Christian and secular groups have criticized the bill as too broad and subjective, potentially interfering with freedom of speech and worship.

On July 24th the consultation for the new hate crime bill was closed. The bill, in its currently drafted form, may have major implications for how Christians — and others — are to act in both public and private spheres when it comes to topics of religion, sexual orientation, and transgender identity, the newly-protected characteristics under the law. Christian groups have expressed concerns over several aspects of the bill. 

The newly defined terms in the bill are criticized as too vague and subjective, which means that anything could be considered an offense. The usual legal safeguards to protect people from an overbroad legislation are missing in this bill. In particular, the law’s prohibition on ‘stirring up hatred’ is likely to conflict with fundamental freedoms. To be an offense, the act does not have to be intentional or threatening, it may merely contribute to ‘stirring up hatred.’ And the law would apply to private settings, such as homes or churches. An example might be that Christians who speak about biblical truths, such as that Jesus is the only way to God, in a church setting, could be considered ‘stirring up hatred’ against other religions. Secular groups, writers, artists, journalists, actors, comedians and others have similarly expressed concerns about the harmful potential of the law.

A group opposing the law, Free to Disagree Scotland, has said:

“Free speech is a vital right that should only be limited by the state when it has strong grounds for doing so. It must include the ability for citizens to discuss, criticise, and refute ideas, beliefs and practices in robust terms. This may result in some people being offended, but there is no right not to be offended.

The Scottish Government’s Hate Crime Bill could criminalise speech merely because it is deemed offensive to certain people. It’s proposed new ‘stirring up hatred’ offences would curb free speech and have a chilling effect on debate over certain issues.”

And then we have what’s going on in Malta, which is incredibly serious:

Proposed Equality Bills 96 and 97 are ostensibly aimed at protecting an extensive group of people from discrimination and cover areas such as schools, public religious symbols, and services and employment. The Bills would make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, age, religious belief, state of health, and other “protected characteristics.” However, many sectors of society, including educators, professionals, business owners, health workers, parents, faith-based groups, and believers are concerned about the laws’ overreach.

The implications of the laws are that they could limit or even deny, freedom of religion, expression, and conscience. The bills have been criticized for using vague and subjective terms, such as “victim,” “mental harm,” “harassment,” “cultural value,” and “discrimination.” Further, the Bills do not include provisions for conscientious objection and reverse the burden of proof to force the accused to prove his or her innocence.

Critics of the current drafts say they give too much weight to subjective interpretation of vague terminology and are overreaching. The bills expand the legal definition of “protected characteristics” to include age, belief, creed or religion, color, ethnic origin, national origin or race, disability, family responsibilities or pregnancy, family or civil status, gender expression or gender identity, genetic features, health status, language, nationality, political opinion, property, sex or sex characteristics, sexual orientation, and social origin.

Among the many concerns raised by critics are:

– Church schools and educators would be limited to transmitting Christian values and ethos only during religious lessons;

– Church schools could be forced to promote gender ideology or other content inconsistent with their faith;

– Interference with parents’ rights to choose schools that reflect their convictions and values;

– Public display of religious symbols would be permissible only when they are of “cultural value” as determined by a designated commission; 

– Private organizations may be restricted in their administration, property, marketing, and promotion; critics warn that certain images or scenes could be considered offensive, such as a picture of a heterosexual married couple;

– Businesses and professionals may be required to provide goods and services to which they have conscientious objection or risk being sued;

– Freedom of expression could become restricted, as could the possibility to live one’s faith publicly. The definition of harassment is vague and does not include the expression of one’s opinion as exempt. Journalistic freedom in covering events or expressing opinion pieces that discuss any of the protected characteristics could be limited;

– There is no provision for conscientious objection;

– No explicit reference to the European Convention of Human Rights to clarify that the law would be secondary to the Convention in cases of conflict;

– The burden of proof in alleged discrimination cases is on the accused; if found guilty of discrimination, the accused could face up to €20,000 in fines or reparation costs.

Former European Commissioner Tonio Borg warned in the Times of Malta: “Where the bills are defective, to the point of being dangerous, is their apparent hostility to faith-based organisations and educational institutions. There is no provision for conscientious objection, but worse there is no provision for the right of Churches to run their own schools according to their own ethos.” 

The Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians in Europe, by the way, is doing some incredible work. I had the opportunity to sit down with executive director Ellen Fantini when I was in Vienna for the Austrian March for Life last fall, and I’m an admirer of what she and her husband Alvino are doing. If you want to know what is facing Christians in Europe right now, check out my interview with her:

FacebooktwitterFacebooktwitter

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *