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.
https://thenewconservative.co.uk/if-i-were-a-marxist/
An excellent complimentary article from the very, very very Ffaaarrr Right Editor of Country Squire magazine. An eloquent summary of all the treasonous acts being committed by Kneel and his bunch of bandits.
Country Squire is mostly Far White.
Why does Labour want to crack down on free speech?
Because they want power. Because they want total, unrestricted, absolute power.
Nothing else matters; the rest is “dressing”.
It is really that simple. If we assume there is anything else to it, we are deluding ourselves.
beat me to it.
A cowed and fearful populace is only ever the reason for their actions.
I believe the election of 2024 could well be the last in this country. I am absolutely certain though that we on DS will definitely not recognise this country by June next year. God knows where we will be.
Violence could be inevitable considering the, shall we call them Globalist Left, are at the top of all of the institutions that matter, and are brainwashing the next generation that wouldn’t know free speech if it locked them into their college campuses. I do worry about it, but maybe it has to happen and hope that it is over quickly.
We will have morphed into a cross between Nigeria and Bangladesh. This ofcourse will be celebrated by the Amy Michel Turners of this world until a family of 10 Syrians move into the 5 bedroom house next door to them, all funded by the mug taxpayers.
Do not lose hope.
A feeling of hopelessness and resignation suits them just fine.
Ultimately they will lose.
Herod killed all the babies… but the one he was actually looking for just happened to be in Egypt.
Correct. Also correct is the fact that I’ve come across cat turds putrefying in my back garden that are more appealing and trustworthy than Herr Starmer. Basically, he hates us and we reciprocate that sentiment;
”The far right is a “very real threat” which needs to be combatted, Sir Keir Starmer has said. Asked how worried he was about the far right at home and abroad, Sir Keir told broadcasters: “I am worried about the far right. I’m worried about populism and nationalism and the politics of the easy answer, the snake oil, if you like.
“It’s very important that we have a debate about how we confront that. My own personal view is that through delivery, through showing there are progressive, democratic answers to the many challenges we face, is the way forward.”
Sir Keir previously condemned this summer’s unrest in the UK as “far-right thuggery”.
In a speech in the Downing Street rose garden on Tuesday, the PM said the riots “revealed a deeply unhealthy society… weakened by a decade of division and decline, infected by a spiral of populism which fed off cycles of failure of the last government”.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crkm8mg4md4o
”Sir Keir Starmer’s ratings have reached a record low. He has plummeted from +11, dropping 27 points to -16.
-63% think his govt was more “interested in helping themselves & their allies” than ordinary people
-53% think Labour was somewhat or very corrupt
-42% believe Labour & Tories are “equally likely to make corrupt decisions or give senior roles to their friends and allies”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/28/keir-starmer-approval-rating-lowest-record-cronyism-scandal/
Zer is no Katz Turden in die garten auf Oberststurmbanfurher Starmer. Vee have vays to make ze migrants cleen up ze shitten
Because they know that their policies will not be popular with or supported by the majority of the people given that despite their landslide on seats barely less than 20% of the electorate voted for them.
Because they are Socialists and that’s what Socialists do – it’s called Socialism.
Why is Labour so determined to crack down on free speech? Because it’s what socialists do. Simple.
The tories were doing the same albeit at a slower pace. Both parties will continue down this path. Why do they do it? Because we have a uniparty state and they take their orders/agenda from the same people.
I think Starmer’s had a bit too much of the old ‘truth serum’ here. Oh well, better out than in, that’s what I always say;
https://x.com/ThatJBT/status/1825866917724188937
There. Fixed it and answered it one go.
Scuffing a copy of the Quran would be a capital crime in some countries.
https://x.com/JamesMelville/status/1829105709310410834
“(that is to say, the ‘perception’ of the ‘victim’ is what counts, rather than actual evidence of hatred)”
Well that goes against the presumption of innocence for a start, violating Common Law. I know these zealots are trashing those laws and values but it is worth pointing out just how far this country has fallen.
https://thenewconservative.co.uk/things-can-only-get-worser/
Roger Watson laments the passing of Great Britain.
“The pace of change is as brazen as it is astonishing. Starmer has the ‘super majority’, essentially, to push through Parliament and on to (or off) the statute books whatever takes his fancy. He not only intends to do that and is already doing it; he reckons he needs at least ten years to complete his mission. God only knows what else he and his team of wreckers have in store for Britain and the British way of life.”
“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”
And don’t forget the Patriot Act. If it was about security, why keep importing potential terrorists when, at same time, cracking down on US citizens and their basic rights violating their own Constitution. But maybe you think that is a conspiracy theory Andrew, and we know you have no time for them.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/totalitarian-starmer-leaves-a-hole-where-british-values-used-to-be/
John Hale over at TCW on totalitarian SStarmer.
There are too many words in this article. If it’s not against the law, the police has no business dealing with it. Monitoring stuff which ‘could’ turn into actual dangers is the job of a secret service which is secret because this monitoring requires secrecy of operations.
Whether or not the government of a a supposedly free state should spy on its own population “just in case someone might be sliding into something illegal” (only applicable to someones who aren’t muslims as this would otherwise be islamphobia — anglophobia is obviously fine!) would be a different question.
This has to be the easiest question I ever had to answer. —–The Establishment Political Class have agenda’s and they cannot stand them being questioned in any way whatsoever. Whether that be mass immigration, climate change, covid policy or whatever. It really is as crude as that.
Here is the new Free Speech Tsar.——– FREE SPEECH IST VERBOTEN
Dear old Heinrich.
No it is Reinhard
“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).”
Perhaps all we have to do to bring it home to our dear leader (I’ll try not to say anything that might be interpreted as hateful), of how stupid the law of non-hate crime is, is for DS readers to report him for being hateful towards ordinary people who happen to express an opinion a little to the right of his Marxist/Trotskyist ideology? After all it is the perception that matters apparently not the evidence. But evidence we have a plenty do we not, since the ordinary person is the victim here.
Communists hate free speech because they know their case is so
weak
It requires a complex answer in terms of the ideological framework that they profess to have which is actually just service to big money. Starmer is a Trilateral Commision man. Their whole role is to install puppets who are conducive to Anglo-American banking interests. You are debt slaves now. You can spend your pennies at the company store and the prices can be very capricious. You have to put a stop to this because pretty soon you will have nothing left save your eyes to cry with.
Poor Yvette. How anxious she must be to the point of sleeplessness over all those pre-hate pre-crime incidents that the servants of the state cannot detect. The temptations to impatience and the tremors of loss of temper that float across a person’s mind in the course of an ordinary day. The dim frissons of dislike that may flicker through any person’s nervous system as the world around them impinges on it.
In any case, no emotion, not even even hate, can be maintained for long. Except on a database.
Your country is what American soldiers call ‘FUBAR’. That is to say, effed up beyond all recognition. I don’t even understand it anymore. It was always precarious trying to buy a kebab at 2am in the morning. Now it is just evil. What were you thinking? That this dreamboat would just go on forever enriching you? I am sorry to say that I have learned through hard experience that it doesn’t work like that. The numbers are too great now there is no way back. Your country is destroyed and only a fractionn will fight back. You sold your country for a few cheap bucks, the thrill of cheap labour, cheap restaurants, cheap nannies. Now you will learn the price of selling out.
I don’t think that the “Tory Government should have eliminated the entire practice in its entirety”; I think it should have “entirely eliminated the entire practice in its entirety”.
Lol. Sorry, just having a laugh – Mr Doyle is entirely right in every respect, entirely. 😉
Two-Tier Keir is morphing into Keir Stalin before our eyes.
But he appears to have aspirations to emulate Fat Kim of North Korea.
https://open.substack.com/pub/alexkrainer/p/the-coming-collapse-of-britain?r=jx6c3&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
This may explain why. As usual most writers on the DS fail to dig far enough down to explain what is going on and seem happy enough to remain in the Left-Right ‘democracy’ bubble.
Re. the murder of Denis Amess MP, the GCHQ whistle blower Katherine Gunn was very suspicious of how the police services behaved in the immediate aftermath. Problem, solution, reaction.
It is part of a pattern of behaviours seen worldwide with politicians in government and their civil servants following the bidding of external interests to the degree of ignoring the interests of the peoples of their own countries.
Whilst we – the proles and great unwashed – get bits and pieces – snippets – about powerful groupings like Bilderberg and WEF.
Who are the string-pullers’ string-pullers?
What ordinary people need is information. What discussions take place between politicians, civil servants and these external interests. What are these anti-democratic activities directed to achieving.
It is impossible to counter an enemy you cannot see.
Has anyone else noticed that some comments are not getting posted when you click ‘Post Comment’?
I have been experimenting and find that deleting some paragraphs and keeping others in draft comments works.
But I am unclear what it might be about the deleted paragraphs the DS comment system will not include in a comment.
A glitch or bots censoring comments?
Ideas anyone?
Why?? Isn’t that obvious! What type of regimes crack down on speech !??