Despite a hate crime being one that is defined as such by the person who presents themselves as the victim, in October the police in Scotland demonstrated less than equal or fair treatment of ‘protected groups’ before the law when faith is involved.
After contacting police in Scotland about a hate incident after posters were placed around Dundee which strongly implied religious people were responsible for hate crimes (November en), David Robertson was told by the police that in fact he was wrong; no hate crime had occurred.
‘Dear Bigots...’
The posters’ text read: ‘Dear Bigots, you can’t spread your religious hate here. End of sermon.’ Even the text font used on the poster is that of the prayer book, making a further connection between the words and the intended recipient. The poster, one in a series, was financed by the Scottish Government.
In a letter responding to David Robertson’s complaint, the police referred to the definition of a hate incident, but tried to prove this didn’t apply to the posters.
‘A hate incident is any incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated (wholly or partly) by malice and ill-will towards a social group but which does not constitute a criminal offence… The Police Scotland Hate Crime Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) directs that ordinarily, the perception of the victim or any other person is the defining factor’, but as the ‘motivation of the Scottish Government campaign is not based on malice or ill will towards any social group, the circumstances will not be recorded as hate related.’
In his reply to them, David noted that the posters did breach guidelines and do incite hatred against a religious group. Criticising the police action, David noted that the ‘perception of the police, rather than the perception of the victim [is what] really matters’.
Further, in suggesting that the police know the intent of the Scottish Government, the police were putting ‘the Scottish Government beyond the law’. He went on: ‘You do not have the right to dismiss my perception of the offending poster, whilst at the same time accepting the perception of those who made them – in this case the Scottish Government.’
Police independence?
In this, David began to question the independence of the police force, as they were appearing to act as agents of the Scottish Government, rather than as an independent force applying the law equally to all.
To demonstrate this point David posed the scenario whereby a Christian group may put up an advert quoting from Genesis about people being made male and female in God’s image. This may be viewed as an act of hate by trans groups. If a trans group complained to the police that a crime had been committed, what was the likelihood of the Christian group being seen as having been motivated by ‘no malice or ill will’? The likely outcome would be the trans group believed, the advert removed, and the Christians charged with a hate crime.
Although the Chief Superintendent said in a local paper that he ‘welcomed correspondence’, it is concerning that points of view from religious people may be treated differently to those from other ‘protected’ groups, as has been the case for David Robertson.
