Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of any free society. The right for any person to speak their mind is what distinguishes free countries from their authoritarian counterparts. Britain seems to have forgotten this. Incidents over the last few weeks have steered us onto a slippery slope. If the UK wants to have any hope of escaping this path, it must stand up for the rights of its people.
The story of Allison Pearson has dominated the headlines. Pearson has claimed the police accused her of violating the Public Order Act after uploading a post to social media which was viewed to be “racist and inflammatory.” Meanwhile, police probed the case of a nine year old who said to a fellow classmate that they smelled like “fish.” It’s ridiculous that such a scenario is even being investigated, but when you police people’s speech these are the consequences.
The government’s decision to police what can and cannot be said through so-called ‘non-crime hate incidents’ is a fundamental overreach of its powers. Through legislating what people are able to say, Starmer and his government have taken on the role of judge, jury, and executioner.
Starmer’s track record makes matters worse. He has done little to ease the concerns of civil liberty groups and freedom of speech campaigners. His decision to scrap the Higher Education Act, which sought to protect freedom of speech on university campuses, is a worrying sign. When it comes to freedom of speech, the prime minister appears happy to flout personal freedoms if it makes his job easier.
But the government’s hand isn’t forced on this matter. It doesn’t have to take such an Orwellian approach. If it really wants to protect people’s right to speech, it can take sensible steps to ensure this. The first of these is through redefining, or even decriminalising, what we mean by “hate speech.”
The Public Order Act states that a “person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words… is guilty of an offence.” The phrase “insulting” lends itself to legal ambiguity. What constitutes insulting language? Is it whether someone felt insulted, or is it perhaps reliant on the intent behind what was said? If the person involved is, “likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress” but this is too broad a definition to be substantial in any capacity.
The government should take steps to reevaluate the status quo of Britain’s free speech laws and change what constitutes hateful language. That is not to say the government should do away with all laws which restrict speech. Falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre, for example, should remain illegal. But when a law is dependent on subjective feelings rather than objective facts, governance becomes impossible and free speech suffers as a result.
What Starmer shouldn’t do, however, is double down as the Scottish Government did. The meaning behind the Hate Crime Bill was well founded. Then First Minister Hamza Yousaf took steps that he believed would protect minority rights in Scotland. But in doing so he took other group’s rights away in the process. Ardent critics of the Bill, such as J.K. Rowling argued that the law was, “wide open to abuse” and she is correct in this claim. The Bill would take legal power out of the hands of the police and judiciary, and hand it to ordinary people. Whilst this may sound empowering on paper, power in the wrong hands can be dangerous. Overnight, the act of taking offence at something could become a weapon if misused. Whilst the Bill never came to fruition, Mr Yousaf’s desire to push it through Holyrood sent a stark message to Keir Starmer: you can try to limit people’s speech, but freedom will win.
Britain is at a crossroads and Starmer is behind the wheel. To the left is an Orwellian-esque society where the reach of the police and state is extended far beyond what it should ever be. To the right, a society which fosters discussion and debates, where people are free to spout and exchange ideas as they wish. The British public have their fingers crossed that Keir Starmer will make the right choice, but with his current track record nobody knows which way the prime minister will go.