The Challenge to Free Speech in the UK

The latest Social Issues Bulletin is now out and available to download free of charge. This article by James Mildred from this issue looks at the concerning ways in which free speech is being increasingly shut down in our country today.

Introduction

It is the ‘digital equivalent of a medieval mob, looking for someone to burn’. That is how Rowan Atkinson, the star of Blackadder and Mr Bean described cancel culture in the UK. Speaking to Times Radio, Mr Atkinson also said the rise of a cancel culture, where someone is boycotted or has their support removed because they have expressed an opinion deemed to be offensive, fills him ‘with fear about the future’.

It seems as if the public are in step with him. In a recent poll published by the Reclaim Party just one in eight believes people have greater freedom to speak freely than five years ago. 50% believe free speech is under threat and only 24% disagreed. 49% believe they are less free now to speak their mind than five years ago.

There is something especially sinister about the desire to completely obliterate the memory of anyone from the past who failed to hold to the ‘enlightened standards’ of the modern day. It is an almost relentless self-righteousness and what is missing is any robust, biblical concept of human sin, frailty and depravity. The idea that all have sinned is simply not part of the equation. Instead, the thinking seems to be that those in the past have sinned and we must demand penance from them, even though they are in the grave. I sometimes wonder if we are witnessing a resurgence, if it ever went away, of what C. S. Lewis called ‘chronological snobbery’ where we demonise the past but exaggerate standards of the present.

The real question is how has it come to this? The UK has a proud and historic tradition of respecting freedom of expression and free speech. Think of the Bill of Rights of 1689 which granted Parliament freedom of expression, which at the time was a bold move. Ever since then, allowing people the space to speak what they think has been a hallmark of British culture. But that legacy is under very serious threat. There is a genuine danger we will sleepwalk into a situation where we lose freedom of expression. Even if the Bible makes no promises about having such freedoms, we should nevertheless be concerned.

What has led to the erosion of these rights?

Such a complex question deserves an entire dissertation is response! There are multiple, complex factors, weaving together that have led us to where we are today – the rise of social media, for example, which encourages people to share their opinions whether they are qualified or not. The constant demand for an instantaneous take on every issue is the result of social feeds. We now expect prime ministers to comment on everything, all the time. How can one person communicate the ‘right’ way all of the time, on all topics?

Then there are the divisive and binary referendums we have had in recent years, from the Scottish independence vote to the Brexit. These were polarising debates which encouraged people to take sides; consider the sheer levels of toxicity and polarisation caused by years of Brexit wrangling at Westminster. Add in the coronavirus crisis, where we have witnessed the state involving itself in our lives in unprecedented ways, and lockdown sceptics and their opponents have gone to war with each other.

Let us take a few moments to highlight some prominent examples of people being ‘cancelled’ in recent times. I have deliberately used mainly non-Christian examples to make a point. This is not something that only effects Christians and as these examples show, it is far, far broader than that.

Prominent examples

J. K. Rowling

In December 2019, Harry Potter author, J. K. Rowling, came under fire after she tweeted support for a researcher who was fired over a tweet. Maya Foster used to work for The Centre for Global Development, an inequality think tank. In March 2019, she publicly opposed a potential update to the UK’s Gender Recognition Act that would have allowed people to self-identify their gender without having undergone any medical procedures.

She took her former employer to court, contending that her consultancy agreement with the centre came to an end after she expressed her view that sex is immutable. A judge ruled that the language used by Ms Foster violated the dignity of transgender people. He said her language was ‘intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive’.

Following this ruling, J. K. Rowling tweeted the following: ‘Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?’

Rowling was immediately accused of being a TWERF which stands for ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’. More was to follow. In June 2020, Rowling took issue with the wording of a headline for an opinion article which read ‘Opinion: Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate’. In response, Rowling said: ‘People who menstruate. I am sure there used to be a word for those people… Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?’

What we saw here was Rowling crossing a line. By insisting that women are women, she exposed herself to online vitriol and abuse that was truly horrendous.

Charity Boss Nick Buckley, MBE

Founder of the award-winning charity Mancunian Way, Nick Buckley was dismissed from his position as chief executive. This was after an article he posted on his LinkedIn account regarding the Black Lives Matter manifesto attracted controversy. There was even a Change.org petition for him to be removed. As a result, the trustees removed Mr Buckley from his position.

He took legal advice, and it was subsequently discovered that the trustees had failed to follow their contractual obligations in getting rid of Mr Buckely. Once this was uncovered, the trustees all stood down from their positions. Mr Buckely was then reappointed to the position as chief executive with a new board in place.

In a piece for The Critic Magazine following his experience, Mr Buckley said he wrote the article which led to his sacking because he wanted to alert the world to BLM, what they stand for and their manifesto. He even chose LinkedIn because it is a platform associated with a better standard of debate and engagement.

In Mr Buckely’s case, however, expressing views about BLM and the protests and their manifesto landed him in a huge amount of trouble.

The ‘thought police’

Then there is the case of Harry Miller. In a tweet he questioned whether trans women are real women. That tweet was subject to complaints and the issue was handed over to Humberside Police. An officer from the force then phoned Mr Miller and, according to Miller, said even though no crime had been committed, he still had to ‘check Mr Miller’s thinking’.

Richard Lucas

Another recent example involves Richard Lucas. He is a teacher and founder of the Scottish Family Party. He was investigated by the General Teacher’s Council for Scotland recently after comments he made regarding children and same-sex parents. He said in a video in 2018 that same-sex parents delivered worse outcomes for children.

Following a four-day hearing, he was allowed to stay on the register of teachers in Scotland. But he still had to defend himself before a tribunal simply for questioning whether same-sex parents are best for children. This view is clearly considered worthy of investigation.

Darren Grimes

Conservative commentator Darren Grimes was last year investigated and threatened with interview under caution by the Metropolitan Police for having conducted an interview with David Starkey. During the interview, Starkey made some offensive and inflammatory comments about slavery, but it was Grimes who was investigated.

Julie Bindel

An Australian publishing house issued an apology for promoting some of Julie Bindel’s works, just because she, like Rowling, thinks there are only two biological sexes.

Seyi Omooba

Christian actress Seyi Omooba was due to play the lead character Celie in a stage performance of the Color Purple. She was dismissed however, after a Facebook post she wrote back in 2014 was uncovered. It was shared on social media by another actor just a few days after she was announced in the cast. In the post, Omooba said she didn’t think people can be born gay or that homosexuality is right. She was sacked by Leicester Theatre Trust Ltd and her contract with her agency was also terminated.

The therapeutic culture

All of the examples cited above touch on very contemporary yet contentious issues. When it comes to transgender, human sexuality, homosexuality and race, are there any other subjects that cause more contention? Most, if not all of the cases above involve social media or video content. It does seem as if it is here that the free speech ‘battle’ is being played out. And it is not just what you say today that can get you into trouble, but anything you have said in the past can be dredged up and used against you.

Society does not seem to have as much trouble with what you think privately. But if you go public, in any way – and of course social media is very public – you make yourself an instant target. You might have thought the issue of transgender was very much still a genuine debate in society. And yet, for simply saying you believe in two biological sexes, you can end up in a huge amount of trouble. Taking an orthodox view on human sexuality, too, was the dominant line of thinking for centuries. Questioning the motives of a pressure group like Black Lives Matter is seemingly not to be tolerated.

What we are witnessing is a mutant form of liberalism. It is the consequence of rejecting facts in a therapeutic culture, where greater store is put on our autonomy and feelings. The only ‘truth’ is whatever modern society says it is. Anything else is beyond the pale. It is a deeply regressive mindset, and it looks set to get worse before it gets better.

What does UK law say?

At the moment, under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, ‘everyone has the right to freedom of expression’ in the UK. The law goes on to say that this freedom ‘may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society’.

These may be ‘in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary’.

A number of different UK laws prohibit hate speech. For example, section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it an offence for a person to use ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviours that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress’. This law also includes language that is deemed to incite ‘racial and religious hatred’ as well as ‘hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation’ and language that ‘encourages terrorism’.

In recent times, there has been a growing debate over whether the UK needs more hate speech laws. For example, there has been suggestions they should be amended to include misogyny. In recent months, the Law Commission has consulted on proposed changes to hate crime laws in England. It is preparing to submit a 500-page review of existing laws and make suggestions for further changes.

If we want some idea of where we are potentially headed with all this, we need only look at Europe where you see evidence of a number of hate speech laws being passed and implemented. As you will see, it has not exactly been easy sailing.

Hate speech laws

Across Europe, the last few decades have seen a huge rise in the number of hate speech laws passed by different legislators.

The examples cited above are evidence of where some in society are at. We are a nation of competing groups, each one determined that their grievances are more worthy than those of others. There is an almost total absence of grace, civility, a willingness to listen. Instead, there is anger, fear, hatred and a sickening self-righteousness. It is also splitting along generational lines with older folks tending to take a more socially conservative view, while younger folk will more naturally incline towards wholesale change and challenge to institutions.

But it is not just on social media that people are experiencing challenges to their free speech. Governments also are seeking, increasingly, to legislate in this whole area. In his book Censored, Paul Coleman of ADF International goes through some prominent examples in various European nations in which free speech is being challenged. He records the rise of hate speech laws and concludes that, ultimately, the same story is playing out again and again.

Once the criminal law is used to silence public debate, there is no end point, according to Coleman. Any idea the state then deems to be wrong, or misguided, is liable to be criminalised. Given the rise of a secular culture in the UK, it is no great leap to suggest this will include biblical Christianity at some point in the future.

Hate Crime Bill in Scotland

There is a live example of new hate crime laws being debated within the UK at the moment. 

In April 2020, the Scottish Government introduced a Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill. It aims to repeal ancient blasphemy laws and expand the number of so called ‘protected characteristics’ to include race, religion and sexuality, among others. At the time of writing, MSPs are currently wrangling over adequate free speech protections.

This is often the story. A Government will introduce a hate speech bill; part of the motive is laudable. Who, after all, does not want to address violent language directed towards various groups? Words have a unique power to tear down and destroy – consider the warning of James 3, where he describes the tongue as capable of starting a forest fire.

But the moment someone tries to legislate against certain types of speech they run into an inevitable problem: Firstly, who defines what is allowed and what is not allowed? Is it possible to come up with a legally watertight description of ‘hate speech’? The Scottish Government want to criminalise intent to stir up hatred. Again, how can ‘intent’ possibly be defined? Secondly, how can free speech be properly protected? Trying to draft safeguards raises exactly the same issues of definitions, legal clarity and so on that exist in trying to define other terms in the legislation.

At the time of writing, MSPs are still debating the finer details of the bill. One area where there is every possibility of a legal challenge is the lack of a ‘dwelling defence’ in the law. This is a vital safeguard that protects from police investigation or prosecution for what is said in the privacy of your own home.

For some reason, however, the Scottish Government will not budge and have so far refused to include a dwelling defence in the legislation. This opens the door to criminalising something said in front of family, friends, or other guests that they find offensive.

A constitutional right?

There are some who argue that we need a written constitution, like the United States to make sure the right to free speech is protected in law. So, in America, the Supreme Court has routinely struck down hate speech laws as ‘unconstitutional’ which in America is about a serious an insult as you can get.

By contrast, as writer Lionel Shriver put it, free speech in Europe tends to prompt an immediate, ‘yes, but’, response. There are those who argue that without a constitution, the UK will inevitable slide further and further down the road of hate speech and hate crime laws that will ultimately criminalise not only what is said, but also what is thought. The case mentioned earlier of Mr Miller certainly evokes this nightmarish scenario.

Glimmers of hope

But there is also reason to not despair. It can certainly feel inevitable, as if there is nothing to stop the onward march of ever more speech-limiting laws. But it was not that long ago that Christians and other civil liberty campaigners came together and achieved a free speech win. 

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 made it illegal to use ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress’. An unlikely coalition of the National Secular Society and the Christian Institute spear-headed a successful campaign to remove the word insulting from this law which was ultimately successful in 2013. The law had been used to silence ‘controversial views’.

The current Home Secretary, Priti Patel, has put it about that she is interested in repealing the hate crime laws passed when Tony Blair was in power. The UK Government has also created a ‘free speech champion’ to push back on cancel culture at universities and this coincides with David Davis bringing forward a bill to safeguard free speech on campus.

When it comes to the debate over trans rights, while the battle is becoming increasingly fierce, it is by no means over. Groups are coming together to take a stand; Stonewall even faced an internal split because of disagreements over the direction it was taking on this issue.

Christian response

As Christians, we are told to make sure our conversation is always seasoned with salt and full of grace (Colossians 4:6). Yet there is a difference between how we say something and whether or not the state should ban certain types of speech.

In this respect, surely the lessons from countries with hate crimes offer a salutary warning. Laws intended to stop sexist language, for example, have often ended up criminalising the traditional, biblical view of sexuality.

Freedom of expression has long provided Christians in the UK with an environment to share the good news. It is surely right that we do what we can to speak up for freedom of expression for everyone in society. No, the New Testament does not hold out the promise of free speech. But it does promise that Christ, by his Spirit, will be with us. It also says when we need help, God will provide. So we can be confident and hopeful as we look to the future.

James Mildred s Head of Communications for CARE. 

(This article was originally published in the Affinity Social Issues Bulletin for February 2021. The whole edition can be found at www.affinity.org.uk)