I have a tendency to be over-optimistic. In my 2022 book The New Puritans, I wrote about “non-crime hate incidents” and how they were still being recorded by police, in spite of the Court of Appeal’s ruling that they were “plainly an interference with freedom of expression” and direct instructions from the Home Office that the police must stop this illiberal and unethical practice. However, I concluded that ultimately “it seems unlikely that ‘non-crime hate incidents’ will last for much longer”.
Of course I was wrong, because I had not counted on just how authoritarian a new Labour Government might be. It was bad enough that the Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson scotched the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act just one day before Parliament went into recess – presumably to avoid having to debate the matter – but now the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has reversed the Conservative’s pledge to limit the recording of ‘non-crime’. Labour is bringing back this absurd policy, and has convinced itself that this is somehow a progressive measure.
It should go without saying that the police have no business recording ‘non-crime’, particularly when such records are based on accusations alone (that is to say, the ‘perception’ of the ‘victim’ is what counts, rather than actual evidence of hatred). The Tory Government should have eliminated the entire practice in its entirety, but instead decided that such ‘incidents’ ought to stay on record if there was a “real risk of escalation causing significant harm or a criminal offence”. The science fiction writer Philip K. Dick had a phrase for this: “pre-crime.”
So let’s leave aside the woefully inadequate restrictions put in place by the Tories. Let’s also leave aside the obvious point that hatred, along with all other emotions, will never be eradicated through legislation and that the state is wasting its time trying to alter human nature. Let’s focus instead on why the Labour Government is so determined to control the speech and thought of its citizens.
How does it help anyone for the name of the schoolboy who accidentally scuffed a copy of the Koran at a school in Wakefield to be on police records? His ‘non-crime’ was duly recorded after the event, but why? Does the Government really suppose that this child is one step away from torching a mosque? Even if he had deliberately scuffed the Koran, what has this to do with the police? I don’t much approve of defacing books, but vandalism of one’s own property is a matter for individual conscience.
Of course, Labour will say that the recent riots have proven the necessity for cracking down on the private thoughts of citizens. In truth, these acts of violence are being exploited to justify further authoritarian policies. We have seen how quick our politicians are to seize upon these moments to advance their own goals. The murder of Sir David Amess had precisely nothing to do with social media, and yet politicians immediately began to argue that his death was evidence of the need to curb free speech online. This was grotesque opportunism from a political class that does not trust the public.
According to the Times, Yvette Cooper believes that the Tory’s efforts to curb investigations into ‘non-crime’ was “preventing police from monitoring and identifying tensions and threats to Jewish and Muslim communities that may escalate into violence”. What is the evidence for this claim? Potential terrorists are already on intelligence watchlists. Those branded as ‘non-criminals’ are typically those who are unlikely to break the law. The recording of ‘non-crime hate incidents’ is simply a chilling means to control the parameters of acceptable opinion, to narrow the Overton Window through state intimidation.
Labour hopes to adopt a new definition of ‘Islamophobia’ which claims that it “is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. The inelegance of the phrase is bad enough, but the conflation of religion and racism makes no sense whatsoever. If such a definition is to be applied in law, there is little doubt that ridiculing or criticising Islam could be criminalised along with attacks on mosques and Muslims. Given that assault and vandalism is already illegal, what exactly is the purpose of this redefinition other than to limit freedom of speech?
History teaches us a great deal about where this is heading. We know that legal proscriptions against offensive viewpoints do not have a mitigating effect; bad ideas that are driven underground tend to fester and multiply. We also know that laws against offensive speech soon expand to incorporate any viewpoints that are not approved by those in power. In 1644, John Milton published his Areopagitica, a counterblast to the Licensing Order of June 1643 which decreed that all printed texts be passed before a censor in advance of publication. In this essential defence of liberty, Milton pointed out that censors do not “stay in matters heretical” but “any subject that is not to their palate”. Little has changed since then.
Once the state has been empowered to set the limits of speech, to introduce legislation against vague and indefinable concepts such as ‘hate’ or ‘offence’, the groundwork for future tyranny is firmly established. One thinks of Juvenal’s famous question: quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (“who will watch the watchmen?”) Nobody with any familiarity with the history of authoritarianism would be naïve enough to trust that legally-enshrined speech codes will not eventually be used to curb political opposition.
We already know that before the Tories modified the guidelines, ‘non-crime hate incidents’ were being recorded against anyone accused of “hostility towards religion, race or transgender identity”. Given that “hostility” is now commonly deployed as a synonym for “criticism” or “disagreement”, we cannot possibly reach any helpful conclusions from these records. For instance, those who take issue with Critical Race Theory could be accused of “hostility towards race”, even though such concerns are typically based on a belief that people should not be judged by the colour of their skin. Similarly, those who maintain that men should not be in women’s prisons are routinely smeared as ‘transphobic’, even though their motivation is to preserve important safeguarding measures. How many of these legitimate points of view have been recorded as ‘non-crime’?
Due to a lack of transparency in the system, we’ll probably never know. Estimates suggest that since the practice was implemented by the College of Policing in 2014, there have been at least a quarter of a million ‘non-crimes’ recorded by police in England and Wales. We know that this can have an impact on the employment prospects of the accused, particularly if they work in a field that requires DBS (Disclosure and Barring Service) checks. The system of ‘non-crime hate incidents’ gives a green light to anyone with a grudge to exact revenge without having to present any evidence whatsoever for the charge of ‘hate’.
The threat that ‘non-crime hate incidents’ represent to liberty cannot be overstated. That the Labour Government is trying to escalate the practice should trouble us all. The creeping authoritarianism of our times is undeniably picking up pace.
Andrew Doyle is a writer, comedian and broadcaster who hosts the GB News show Free Speech Nation. He is the author of Free Speech and Why It Matters and The New Puritans. He created satirical Left-wing activist Titania McGrath, whose two books are Woke: A Guide to Social Justice and My First Little Book of Intersectional Activism. This article was first published on his Substack. You can subscribe here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
A huge thank you to you and to HART.
You provided the evidence to reassure so many of us that it was not us on this site that were the raving lunatics…..
Here’s an interesting study on virus transmission that would be impossible to conduct today.
The results are, to say the least, troubling.
https://www.iflscience.com/grim-experiments-on-prisoners-during-the-spanish-flu-pandemic-did-not-go-to-plan-59242
Exactly what I wrote below, downvoted by the uninformed. No proof is offered by Clare on her transmission theory. Emphasis on theory from 160 years ago. FFS.
Thank you.
I support Clare and HART but she is wrong about germ theory and airborne viral transmission. There is not a single study proving this. Nothing.
Show me evidence how the magic virus flies through the air like a bird and then infects me. Outside the host the virus dies. Simple as that. See Bechamp.
And it is still a theory they argue over – so where is the god damn science? Even Pasteur the quack admitted his theory was bullshit. The US military has done plenty of studies looking at contagion in a group between those ill with the flu and the healthy – all with a negative outcome.
https://advances.massgeneral.org/research-and-innovation/article.aspx?id=1228
You are giving away the fact you have not read the book.
It is packed full of evidence – and yes I do present the evidence that supports terrain theory too.
The point is more about what the evidence shows that cannot be true and yet was believed by those in positions of power.
Great title and full respect to the heroic Dr Craig, a source of insight and encouragement through the darkest days of deception.
We must trust our own eyes, not just with covidism but also climatism.
May you sell many copies!
God bless you and similar courageous medics.
Thank you for keeping me sane for the last three plus years.
At first I thought I was the only human being on the bloody planet who could see what was really going on.
We will win this. More people are waking up.
The mRNA jabs will be confined to the dustbin of history and with a bit of luck those who promoted them will face a similar fate (Hopefully a worse one).
If it were not for my lovely wife, I would have thought the same – that I was the only one. Stay sane, Sforzesca!
Wow.
Just suppose that the whole premise of pathogen /disease/illness/death was based upon an entirely false paradigm
Bechamp Rules.
Indeed. In May my huz was floored for a week with some flu-like lurgy. Fever, chills, bunged up etc, the lot. In fact, for 2 entire days he didn’t even come downstairs and only got up to go to the toilet. I still slept in the same bed but had the window open every night. Neither me nor kiddo got even a sniffle. She had a cold for a full week on a different occasion and neither me nor huz got anything. So it’s definitely not a given that just because you live with someone who’s ill with a virus you’re also going to get it. Interesting stuff…Not sure if it’s related but huz is the only one in the house who’s been jabbed with Moderna X2. Me, kiddo and the cat are most definitely non-GMOs.
So he does. Flying scary viruses simply don’t exist.
“I thoroughly explored avoiding Amazon altogether and using independent publishers, warehousing and shipping but it was simply not economically viable. “
In the real wold nothing of us is totally pure. It’s more important to keep getting the message out.
I’ve ordered one via A, potential delivery from 1/8 – so we’ll see!
Dear Doctor Craig (for you deserve the title, Doctor),
Thank you for everything you’ve done, are doing and I hope will do for a long time to come.
I notice you have not referred to this horrific period of human history as a “pandemic”. For you, more than many others, know that it was no such thing.
Godspeed.
Kind regards,
MAk.
Hope, strength and fortitude to those who think and judge for themselves.
Epidemics don’t grow exponentially as easily illustrated with a game of cards.
Whatever anyone thinks about Amazon, Audible is brilliant. You can listen while doing simple but time-consuming tasks such as washing dishes, tidying, resting, walking, etc I’ve ‘read’ ten times more books via Audible than I used to read before Audible, and I’ll certainly get this book, read by Claire Craig herself.
I’ve purchased it.
Doctor Craig, I would like to thank you for being the calm voice of common sense over the past 3 years. I suspect that your speaking out and going against the CV narrative has cost you a lot and shows great courage. I look forward to reading the books.
Well done, Claire, it is massive-when you attempt to tell the whole story-as you say the real world data/evidence is absolutely conclusive yet no one in authority admits to, or is accountable for the disastrous decisions. I held an ambition to write the story of the damage to children–the evidence just goes on and on–I stopped at 16000+ words.https://hughmccarthy.substack.com/p/these-people-are-still-in-power-they
Only read the first chapter but so far so good.
Thank you Dr Craig for your strength and fortitude you together with the likes of Toby Young and other sensible dissenting figures have (and I know this is becoming a cliche but it’s so true) kept me sane over the last three years or so.
Good luck with the book you deserve every success.
Thank you for all your scientific work!
The miracle of technology, purchased while sitting having breakfast in Cala Galdana
I’m afraid I refuse to use Amazon so I won’t be buying it. I’ll order it from the library or get a second-hand copy in due course.
Where do you draw the line with that attitude?
If the library is displaying the trans-promoting rainbow flag, are you still going to order it from the library?
Do you think your refusal to buy anything from Amazon will have much impact?
Before you might buy a second-hand copy in due course, would you check to make sure the book wasn’t originally purchased from Amazon? How about Waterstones, would that be okay?
You will probably be able to purchase it from a High Street bookshop. They do still actually exiist
(Hopefully they won’t order it from amazon….)
Hi
I have just ordered.
Are you able to do the same with Net Zero???