Free Speech Coming To An End in the UK

Free Speech is no longer free in UK due to rising anti hate, anti discrimination, anti hatred, anti incitement and many more laws that…

Free Speech is no longer free in UK due to rising anti hate, anti discrimination, anti hatred, anti incitement and many more laws that prevent free speech in many different forms in the UK. We constantly see articles on the news of professors, teachers, and employers being cancelled over a few words that they have said out loud or on social media and as a result they’re cancelled from society based on their views as free human beings and citizens of the UK. One example is a Eton teacher who was fired from his job due to refusing to delete a personal youtube video questioning toxic masculinity. This has been happening all over the county from one industry to another and this cancel culture and the politicising of everything and everywhere has lead to large social problems and has resulted in people shifting from mainstream media into more closed alternative media.

Criticism of Muslims and Islam represents an idea, not a nationality or an ethnicity or something unchangeable such as physical characteristics . The conventional purpose of most hate-speech laws is to protect people from hatred, not ideas. In the UK hate speech laws are very close to criminalizing criticism of Islam at the moment you can be fined and arrested for criticizing Islam as anything that doesn’t fit the mainstream opinion can fall under anti social behaviour a law that is so vague that the police have the power to arrest anyone who they feel like arresting. An alternative to the current hate laws would be a specific and narrow law focused on individuals rather than a religion on itself as the law should protect the criticism and debate of Islam.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council, which represents the leaders of law enforcement in England and Wales, have also expressed concern with the broadened definition. Its chair, Martin Hewitt, said: “We take all reports of hate crime very seriously and will investigate them thoroughly. However, we have some concerns about the proposed definition of Islamophobia made by the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims. We are concerned that the definition is too broad as currently drafted, could cause confusion for officers enforcing it and could be used to challenge legitimate free speech on the historical or theological actions of Islamic states. There is also a risk it could also undermine counter-terrorism powers, which seek to tackle extremism or prevent terrorism”.

Richard Walton, a former head of Counter-Terrorism Command of the Metropolitan Police, wrote: “Adopting the definition would hand the initiative to those who have been trying to dismantle the Government’s Countering Violent Extremism programme for years; it is no surprise to see many of those same campaigners and radical groups have been closely involved in the APPG’s work in developing the definition (as authors or sources)… how could the police or anyone else disprove that they had targeted an expression of ‘perceived Muslimness’?… “If the Government accepts the APPG definition of Islamophobia, all of these [anti-terrorism] powers are more likely to be challenged by anti-Prevent campaigners and their supporters who would seek to label police officers ‘Islamophobic’ (and, therefore, racist)…
“… Whole government departments, the entire police service, intelligence agencies, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), judiciary and HM Prison and Probation Service could be branded and labelled ‘institutionally Islamophobic’ by anti-Prevent campaign groups. It would be an allegation that would be impossible to refute, owing to the indistinct and imprecise nature of the APPG definition…”

Similarly, the UK government, according to a Buzzfeed report, is concerned that defining Islamophobia as a form of racism “could mean people who criticise aspects of Islam might be prosecuted under discrimination laws.”
The UK government is right, of course. Islam represents an idea, not a nationality or an ethnicity. The conventional purpose of most hate-speech laws is to protect people from hatred, not ideas. The new proposed definition would criminalize criticism of Islam.

Britain’s proposed new internet law entails a government power grab with worrying implications for freedom of speech, according to civil liberties groups, academics and the tech industry. The groups are concerned the proposed Online Safety Bill would hand to Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden disproportionate powers in the name of protecting users from “harmful” content.

The Bill will allow him to “modify” a code of practice — the blueprint created by the regulator Ofcom for how tech companies should protect users — to ensure it “reflects government policy.”

Leave a Reply

Translate »