In my book, The Indispensable Right, I discuss how free speech is in a free fall in Great Britain, where officials continue to crack down on an ever-widening array of viewpoints. Some of these actions are designated as “non-crime hate” but are still the subject of law enforcement actions. According to the Daily Mail, they now include children who have been pulled in for calling other children schoolyard names like “retard” or saying that other children smell “like fish.”
According to the Daily Mail:
“A nine-year-old child is among the youngsters being probed by police over hate incidents… Officers recorded incidents against the child, who called a fellow primary school pupil a ‘retard’, and against two schoolgirls who said another student smelled ‘like fish.’ The youngsters were among multiple cases of children being recorded as having committed non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs), The Times discovered through freedom of information requests to police forces.”
“Non-crime hate” was introduced in 2014 as part of the Hate Crime Operational Guidelines. It is chilling in its ambiguity and scope. It only requires the perception of either a victim or a third party that a statement is motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or transgender identity.
The HCOG stresses, “The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception. Evidence of the hostility is not required.”
That guarantees the maximal level of investigation and documentation of speech incidents. The chilling effect on free speech is glacial.
For years, I have been writing about the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom and the steady stream of arrests. A man was convicted for sending a tweet while drunk referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”Last year, Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.
While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room. Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”
Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”
Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views.
After the sentencing, Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE), warned others that he was going to prison because he “showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
Great Britain is now turning, it appears, to their children in speech crackdowns. Schoolyard taunts can be investigated by officers. The impact on both parents and children will obviously be immense. It adds a coercive element to speech laws. Given the subjective and vague standard, the response is to self-censor to avoid any such accusations. Raising children in such an environment will only erode free speech values. Indeed, it fosters the type of speech-phobic generation that many activists may welcome. Speech is viewed as dangerous and subject to continual monitoring by the state.
Stopping some kid from using a playground taunt will do little to instill mutual respect, but it will instill fear over how the state may respond to your words. It is a lesson that many in the free speech community may relish but one that most citizens should reject. “Non-crime hate” investigations are meant to maintain a constant sense of oversight and monitoring of speech, even with our children.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
As British falls under greater Muslim power and influence, intolerance grows. Britain is rapidly becoming the first socialist nuclear armed Muslim nation. They have only just begun.
Perfidious Albion comes home to roost on the heads of its own citizens.
C’mon, everyone knows you don’t go full retread.
Chicago has “hate incident” law too, Chicago police have to report any incident where there is name calling to hate incident unit. Even when no crime is committed. Search for “chicago police Department directives” when you get on department directives search for “hate incident” and the law and policy is there for public to view.
But in Chicago they can’t actually do anything to someone for a “hate incident”. All they can do is record it for public information.
We are moving forward in reverse. Say hello to the new inquisition.
“We did not love freedom enough.”
—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
The idea that a 7 year old child has the capacity to comprehend a hate crime is about as asinine as the idea that a prepubescent teen boy understands the decision to let a doctor chemically castrate them.
Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”
Trump has nominated Ex-Soros Executive, a married gay man with 2 children, Scott Bessent, as Treasury Secretary. Pot, meet kettle
what will the Left do with Orange Hitler having a gay Soros financial supporter as a Cabinet member?
what will the Right do with MAGA having a gay Soros financial supporter as a Cabinet member?
🍿
The Ex-Soros Executive Who Is Trump’s New Obsession
“One of the most brilliant men on Wall Street.” “Respected by everybody.” “A nice-looking guy, too.” This is how former President Donald Trump recently described Scott Bessent, a little-known hedge-fund manager, onetime Al Gore supporter and George Soros’s former top investor.
Bessent joined Soros Fund Management in 1991. He was one of the driving forces behind the firm’s enormous bet that the British pound would collapse after he spotted marked weakness in the U.K. housing market. The wager netted the firm more than $1 billion in 1992. Bessent was Soros’s chief investment officer from 2011 to 2015 and ran the firm for a time. He scored kudos again, in 2013, for a successful bet against the Japanese yen.
Bessent is reserved and known to spout obscure economic data. He is married to a former New York City prosecutor, John Freeman, and they have two children. He primarily lives in Charleston, S.C., where the pair preserves historic mansions.
https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/the-ex-soros-executive-who-is-trumps-new-obsession-4be2d493
Answer: nothing.
Why is this even an issue? He’s a good investor, once worked for Soros and did a good job for him, and then went into business for himself. Soros thought highly enough of his talent that he invested in him, and he made a good return on the investment. So all’s good.
Soros is not some kind of monster. He’s a good investor and a good businessman, who has some very wrong political opinions. That doesn’t mean his money is tainted or something. I mean do you think Buffet’s money is tainted too? Would someone who once worked for Buffett be ineligible for an appointment according to you?!
Makes you wonder if Ellen Degeneris realizes that the speech and conduct that merely got her kicked off of cable/TV in the U.S.A. are actually crimes in her newly adopted country in the U.K. She may be jumping from the frying pan she claims Trump is into the fire that is jolly old England.
Orwell’s descendants.
You’re queer, marginally viable, and your diverse fathers dress you joyfully.
No legislation that denies individuals their constitutional rights is valid, legitimate, licit, or constitutional.
Damages accruing from the free exercise of constitutional rights are subject to civil litigation.
If only the French and British had a First Amendment.
The rights, freedoms, privileges, and immunities provided by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are absolute and are not subject to qualification.
If the rights, freedoms, privileges, and immunities provided by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not absolute, they do not exist.
The article goes with the Rowling article. Magical thinking if you’ve thought it you’ve done it speaks of oppression. A place of oppression as seen in the two articles was predicted.
Trans people magically think they can change and maybe in a magical world you can. That goes back to ancient Greece and hermaphrodite. The great pantheon of human physiology and psychology.
Rowling engages in magical thinking literally in her books with spells and powers. Apparently both are acceptable.
Children taunting people is ill mannered. Parents will be arrested next? Most likely a parent called the child a retard after he spilled his milk.
You douche bags don’t deserve a republic. You deserve to be nuked.
Huh?! Which douche bags? The English? They haven’t got a republic, and don’t want one. They had one once and it was a disaster.