In 1697, a man was executed in Scotland for "blaspheming" for the last time.
Thomas Aikenhead, a 20-year-old Edinburgh student of divinity, had joked about the Christian faith while out with friends and challenged the authenticity of the miracles recorded in the Bible. His university friends testified against him in court and, facing the most senior lawyer in Scotland as prosecutor, Aikenhead could not afford a legal defense and represented himself—unsuccessfully.
Such days are long gone. Scotland repealed its defunct blasphemy law in 2021.
But in the same bill repealing the blasphemy law, Scotland replaced it with another censorial, authoritarian statute which prevents people from speaking out against the dogmas and mantras of today's most dominant religion.
This "hate speech" law immediately became the new blasphemy law.
The legislation made it a crime to "stir up hate" with words or behavior against anyone based on age, religion, disability, transgender identity, sexual orientation, or "variations in sex characteristics." Nobody wants to feel hated. Thankfully, very few like to make others feel hated either. But what is hate, legally speaking? As with almost every piece of "hate speech" legislation, the new law provides no clarity at all about which words can be defined as "stirring up hate," and which can't. The vague and ambiguous law will doubtlessly chill conversations, even in family homes, where the ban on "hate speech" still applies. Could certain statements about biological reality, the need to protect single-sex changing rooms, or beliefs about marriage and human sexuality soon be illegal? Time will tell.
The law came into force on April 1, and many have been anxiously refreshing their social media feeds to see if and when J.K. Rowling will be in trouble. The one-time "Queen of Scots"—and one of the most successful authors of all time—has for years been the target of activist complaints. Rowling challenged the law immediately by tweeting about her beliefs on gender Monday morning, forcing an investigation. With the eyes of the world watching, Police Scotland chose not to proceed with any charges of "hate speech"—this time.
But it's not only Rowling who stands accused of "heresy" against the dominant dogmas of today's political elite. From those who believe that no child was ever "born in the wrong body" to comedians who push the envelope of acceptability, all manner of Scots could inadvertently go beyond the government's accepted speech parameters.
We needn't look too far to see how this goes. In Finland, where hate speech laws have been enforced for several years, I served on the legal team of a grandmother and longtime politician who challenged dominant orthodoxies about marriage and sexuality, and has almost five years of legal battles to show for it. Päivi Räsänen tweeted a Bible verse in 2019, questioning her church leadership's decision to sponsor a Helsinki Pride event. The state prosecuted her on charges filed under the "war crimes and crimes against humanity" section of the Finish Criminal Code. Despite being fully acquitted twice, her case has been appealed to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, in Mexico, ADF International has backed the legal defense of two separate politicians, both prosecuted for upholding their beliefs in the biological reality of women on X (formerly Twitter). Both Gabriel Quadri and Rodrigo Ivan Cortes were convicted of "gender-based political violence" for their words, and placed on an offenders register. We are appealing their cases to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
The ripple of censorship is spreading. South Africa recently passed a "hate speech" law. Ireland may well be next in line. A bill sitting before the Irish parliament would even criminalize memes found on someone's phone if deemed to be offensive by the state. In Canada, legislation has been put forward that could put citizens under house arrest if it's suspected that they could commit "hate." Those found guilty of posting alleged "hate speech" online could have to pay victims up to C$20,000 in compensation.
The lesson of history is clear. The state cannot be trusted to decide what speech is acceptable and what is not. Inevitably, the "unacceptable views," as Justin Trudeau once called them, will be those that go against government policy and political and cultural orthodoxies. With the sorry case of Thomas Aikenhead having occurred almost 350 years ago, we thought we had learned this lesson in the West. Sadly, it looks like we going to have to learn it all over again.
The heresy trials are back. This time, "hate speech" laws will punish anyone who blasphemes against the new church of "woke."
Paul Coleman (@Paul_B_Coleman) is the Executive Director of ADF International, and author of "Censored: How European Hate Speech Laws are Threatening Freedom of Speech."
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
About the writer
To read how Newsweek uses AI as a newsroom tool, Click here.
