Recently I have read about a law- the Hate Crime and Public Order Act- that will soon go into effect and it is very concerning. From what I have heard your new law is largely subjective, meaning it’s not a specific act or behavior that might be reported to the authorities, but a perception of an offended individual. We are very polite and non-confrontational people, but are also conservative and traditional. I envision a scenario where my wife might need the use of a lady’s bathroom but find a biological male inside, show a distressed countenance and immediately turn around an exit. Not that she would ever offer any insult or act aggressively, but that the biologic male might perceive an insult or emotional injury, and contact the police. Would it be possible in such a scenario that a zealous constable from Police Scotland would track us to a hotel room and question us. Could we be charged and even arrested and sanctioned for a “hate crime?” From what I have learned this is an actual potentiality.

In the 19^th century we had a very bloody war in the US, commonly called The Civil War, that resulted in the abolishment of slavery. Unfortunately, in the aftermath of that massive political and cultural shift, a new institution was created by disaffected bigots who held a great deal of power in certain areas, typically referred to as Jim Crow. Jim Crow was a means to keep black citizens oppressed, and involved laws and societal practices that were biased against them. Some laws were straightforward: black people could only drink at designated water fountains or sit in specified areas of restaurants, if allowed at all; this was called segregation.

The latter were perhaps more pernicious, and were based on perceived actions of black people. For example, a black person could fail to step off a sidewalk fast enough in favor of a white person, or might look a white person in the eye and hence be considered “uppity.” Being “uppity” could result in an arbitrary charge analogous to a “hate crime,” i.e. no actual crime was committed but the white person was offended, and the black person might have suffered the full brunt of the law. In theory the black person was protected by our Constitution, but the legal system was rigged at all levels in support of privileged class whites and those with whom they allied. For example, the word of an ignorant and bigoted white person would often carry more weight than an educated and dignified black person. It was, needless to say, a system that was unjust and contrary to the ideal of equality under the law.

Over 20 years ago I was the volunteer medical director at a remote clinic in Kenya, this being the time of the AIDS epidemic in Africa and almost everyday was filled with new tragedies. I befriended an exceptional young man just about to complete form four (what we call in the US his last year of high school). He grew into very accomplished and honorable adult, and a little over five years ago we brought him to the US under a student visa to attend university. He will be graduating with his third (and final) academic degree in several weeks, as always at the top of his class. I mention this because when he arrived I gave him an explanation of American culture, which included a caution that many Americans yearn to be considered victims and find comfort (and power) in feeling outraged. He has found this to be true. Fortunately we in the US are not (yet) at the point where feelings direct the legal process, but do fear a time when the police will come knocking at the door to investigate an accusation based upon someone feeling offended.

History is replete with those in power, often synonymous with the government, obtaining and maintaining power by advantaging certain groups of people, certain demographics, over others. This creates an “us versus them” dynamic, and allows a dangerous and insidious form of government and legal mischief, as we so frightfully saw in the days of Jim Crow.

Are you able to give us assurances to potential tourists that this is not what Scotland will become on April 1^st, that Scotland isn’t initiating its own form of Jim Crow where people encounter authorities not because they committed any defined crime, but that an action or word was simply perceived- or misperceived- by a sensitive person that falls under an ostensibly protected class? I do hope you respond that my fears are unfounded, that, in my example above, my wife could rapidly depart a public bathroom upon seeing a biologic male, and that we needn’t be concerned of repercussions from Police Scotland.

We will look forward to hearing back from you as we consider our many year desire to visit your homeland.

Kind regards,

Reid Fitzsimons

Dear Reid

Thank you for contacting us with your concerns about the Hate Crime and Public Order Act. We are sorry to hear that you have concerns about visiting Scotland due to this law coming into force.

VisitScotland is not a regulatory body and does not have enforcement powers. We are therefore not able to offer any guarantees around how the law will be implemented as far as visitors are concerned. Interpretation and enforcement of the law will be a matter for the relevant authorities, in this case Police Scotland. We will of course monitor the impact this legislation has on visitors to Scotland through feedback from visitors and from our partners. Ultimately, we hope that visitors have a wonderful experience here in Scotland and wish to return.

Please be assured that we will continue to work tirelessly so that Scotland’s famous hospitality can be celebrated by all who visit here. We hope that you will choose to come back to Scotland soon.

Kind regards,

Jackie

VisitScotland Information Team