David Theobald
I am not a lawyer and the extensive professional training I had earlier in life was in a totally different field of endeavour. During this, I learnt that detail was incredibly important but only if laid on top of a thorough understanding of basic principles. And I then found that the most reliable basic principle was that if something doesn’t feel right it probably isn’t.
Hate speech laws that are apparently under consideration by the CoL (with that well known balanced legal titan, the Minister of Justice, at the helm) feel anything but right. One of last night’s videos was ‘The death of free speech’ from Germaine Greer and I cannot be convinced that hate speech laws are not a keystone in a society’s suppression of free speech. Greer, although an Australian, has spent pretty much all her working life in the UK and it was from an ITV show that last night’s clip was lifted.
Britain has hate speech laws and there is much criticism that they have opened the Pandora’s box that they were always destined to do.
An ex-Police officer has taken a Police Training College to Court over their instructions to Police forces (sorry, Police services as they have to now be called) as to how they report ‘non-crime hate incidents’. This apparently is to be done even if there is no evidence that such incidents even took place. Eh?
The “right to be offended” does not exist, a judge has said, as the High Court hears that British police forces are recording hate incidents even if there is no evidence that they took place.
Mr Justice Knowles made the remark on the first day of a landmark legal challenge against guidelines issued to police forces across the country on how to record “non-crime hate incidents”.
The College of Policing, the professional body which delivers training for all officers in England and Wales, issued their Hate Crime Operational Guidance (HCOG) in 2014, which states that a comment reported as hateful by a victim must be recorded “irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element”.
[…]The case against the College is being brought by Harry Miller, a 53-year-old man from Lincoln, who claims that the HCOG is unlawful because it infringes on his right to freedom of expression.
Mr Miller, a married father of four, was investigated by Humberside Police earlier this year after a Twitter user complained that he shared a “transphobic limerick”. Even though no crime was committed, his sharing of the limerick online was recorded as a “hate incident” and he was described as a “suspect” in police reports, the court heard.
Mr Miller, who was previously an officer for the Humberside force, accused the police of “creating a chilling atmosphere for those who would express a gender critical position”.
“The idea that a law-abiding citizen can have their name recorded against a hate incident on a crime report when there was neither hate nor crime undermines principles of justice, free expression, democracy and common sense,” he said.
Another Police force (sorry…) has, just this week, required such incidents be included as part of in-depth police vetting for certain jobs (childcare, I think). To me this just feels wrong (vide supra).
Up to now this has been swallowed hook, line and sinker by Plod until this ex PC (with the delightfully British, salt of the earth name of Harry Miller) has taken the training arm of the Police (good choice of target, that) as far as the High Court after he was reported by a Twitter user (Quelle surprise) for sharing a supposed ‘transphobic limerick’ online. Even though no crime was committed, this resulted in Harry being described as a suspect.
Now, this is where my lack of legal training puts me on thin ice; I don’t understand what weight the following refreshing statement holds.
One Mr Justice Knowles has said in the High Court
That doesn’t make sense to me. How can it be a hate incident if there is no evidence of the hate element? We live in a pluralistic society where none of us have a right to be offended by something that they hear. Freedom of expression laws are not there to protect statements such as ‘kittens are cute’ – but they are there to protect unpleasant things. Its utility lies in exposing people to things that they do not want to hear.
The right not to be offended does not exist.
telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/20/right-offended-does-not-exist-judge-says-court-hears-police/
The UK is already at this place, a place I would not like to be. But if the portents are to be believed this is where New Zealand is heading. Is Massey university and its recent behaviour in the vanguard of this movement and playing the useful idiot to the CoL’s push in this direction?
It doesn’t feel right to me and, therefore, a life of experience of such feelings tells me it is not right.