27th July 2010
Leading Think-Tank Decries Loss of Free Speech
Mark Hanson
Civitas, a leading independent think-tank, has released a report highlighting the serious threat faced by freedom of speech.
In the report, A New Inquisition: religious persecution in Britain today, Civitas criticizes the development of “hate crimes”, and warns that the laws are being interpreted and applied unevenly. Christians in particular have found themselves disproportionately targeted by laws that are supposed to protect the “rights” of racial, religious and sexually-oriented groups of people.
In a telling section of the report, Jon Gower Davies, the author, states that: “It becomes "wise" to "be careful", to restrict the compass of what we say about what we believe, or do not believe, or about what others believe or do not or should not believe, and to turn what were once vigorous public conversations into a frightened, if safe, if amiable and fundamentally humourless chat about small and dwindling things.”
Civitas suggests that “because freedom of speech is the prevailing view in Britain, we are not as alert to the risk of its overthrow as we should be”.
The Hate Crimes have resulted in the police, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and ultimately judges being put in a position where they have to decide if a view, opinion or assertion is based on an underlying hatred. It also requires judges to ascertain whether a religiously held opinion is valid. To declare that homosexuality is a sin would require a court process in which the judge is called to form a verdict as to Biblical teaching on the issues of sin, evil, salvation, forgiveness, love, reproof, correction and expression, as well as the particular verses dealing with homosexuality.
It is sad to say, but free debate and expression is not a privilege that we have in the UK any more.
The plethora of legislation that restricts freedom of speech is astounding: There are now more than 35 Acts of Parliament, 52 Statutory Instruments, 13 Codes of Practice, 3 Codes of Guidance and 16 European Commission Directives which bear on 'discrimination'.
The specific laws that create a system of needing to fear saying the wrong thing include the Public Order Act and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. Yet to sift through all the tangled mess of restrictions on the freedom of speech would be tedious. Therefore I hold that the best practice would be a single law, which would supersede all other legislation and have a constitutional prominence, that would guarantee that no person should be arrested simply on the basis of what they say.
