Seòmar agus comataidhean

You used the phrase “silently judging”. How do I know whether someone is silently judging me?

Do you have an example of how that might work in practice? The police have said that they would not ask somebody what they were thinking about or whether they were praying.

Okay. In relation to reviewing the legislation, what would be an appropriate mechanism in the bill to ensure that there is continued proportionality, that rights are balanced and that women are protected?

When we are talking about the balance of rights, it is important for us to try to bottom everything out. There are top-level things that every reasonable person would agree with, but we want to avoid unintended consequences.

My other question is about proportionality, which you have covered in your answers to colleagues. Is there anything else that you want to say about the evidence that you gathered from those accessing services and those who want to partake in protest or vigil?

I am sorry, but that just triggered something in my mind. The police officer who gave evidence to the committee talked about controversial marches—I assume that he was talking about the marches that take place in the west of Scotland—and he said that if someone were to display an opposing flag in their house, the police would ask them to take it down, because it could be seen as incitement. Could it be the case that, if a person’s property were in an exclusion zone, an overt depiction of their Christianity could be seen in that way? Who would decide that?

That is very important. In the questions that I am asking, I am in no way diminishing at all the impact on women, but it is important that we explore the issue thoroughly.

You spoke in general terms about balancing rights. Can you speak a bit more specifically about the process that the Scottish Government went through when looking at the balance of rights and the human rights implications of the bill?

There have been calls for post-legislative reviews to be embedded in the bill. How do you respond to that?

Finally, we spoke about the right of women to access healthcare without obstruction. Is there an argument to be made that, in order to take account of women’s privacy and so that they feel that they are secure and safe in accessing healthcare, particularly for something that is deeply personal to them, there should not be any protests outside those facilities?

How will that be enforced? How will we know what somebody is silently judging or praising, or whatever they are silently doing?

Following on from Ross Greer’s question about display of visual symbols on private property, you said that whether that would be caught by the bill would depend on the context and whether the displaying of those symbols would influence someone’s decision. Is the issue to do with a person’s intention to influence or whether an individual is influenced? It is a terribly complex issue, is it not? It is not straightforward.