When it comes to free speech, the UK is a third-class nation. How did we let this happen?
The UK is now ranked only in the third tier on a global index of freedom of expression due to what is described as the “chilling effect” of government policies, policing and the intimidation of journalists.
Chile, Jamaica and virtually every other Western European state are ranked above us in the list compiled by the advocacy group Index on Censorship.
As a parliamentarian, I am both shocked and embarrassed by this. How has this sad state of affairs come about and what can we do about it?
The police have enthusiastically embraced the recording of non-crime hate incidents. Non-crime incidents have never been required by Parliament in legislation and it is certainly not a crime to make somebody feel uncomfortable.
In this category, the police have interviewed people for tweeting feminist songs and not allowing a guide dog into a shop. If only Orwell was alive today…
Universities cannot function effectively without free speech yet there have been a number of appalling incidents representing a decline in academic freedom.
For instance, Prof Kathleen Stock was hounded out of her job at Sussex University for stating a simple biological fact that men cannot become women and vice versa. Academics and invited speakers have been cancelled.
In contrast to the police’s enthusiasm for non-crime hate incidents, compare the lack of action and interest in pursuing the Muslim extremists who forced a religious education teacher at Batley Grammar School in West Yorkshire to go into hiding in fear of his life after giving a lesson with a visual depiction of the prophet Mohammed.
Threatening a person’s life is unlawful, producing pictures of the prophet Mohammed is not.
Free speech and the freedom of the press are fundamental to our democracy, yet parliamentarians have had inappropriate and intimidating interviews by the police.
Extraordinarily, former Labour MP Ian Austin, now Lord Austin, was interrogated by the police because he had called Hamas “Islamists”. Hamas is a proscribed organisation whose objective is genocide: to kill Jews and destroy Israel.
Democratic debate is about allowing the free exchange of ideas so that poorly constructed concepts can be improved and mistaken “facts” can be corrected.
MPs have their freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1689 Bill of Rights when debating in the House of Commons for this very reason.
Just as important, if not more important, is the freedom of the press.
Free elections and free speech are necessary but not a sufficient condition for a healthy democracy.
Scrutiny by journalists in the Fourth Estate is vital. If The Telegraph hadn’t published MPs’ expenses, the theft of public money and the abuse of position would almost certainly have gone unrecognised.
Watching friends and acquaintances being prosecuted and sent to prison was an uncomfortable period for all MPs, however clean their record, but this painful exercise has definitely improved the accountability of MPs.
Having this understanding of the importance of the press I was incensed by the “Stasi-like” intrusion into the home of Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson on Remembrance Sunday of all days. This is why I raised the matter at Prime Minister’s Questions.
I don’t know why the police are in effect pushing the boundaries of free speech back, but they are.
Although my free speech rights in the chamber are guaranteed, the rest of the citizenry’s rights are dependent on Common Law and the limits are more flexible.
I am pleased to see that the exposure to discussion in the Commons seems to have helped persuade the police to withdraw their action.
I am sure the public want them to deal with real crime and not thought crime. After all, the clear-up rates on shoplifting and burglary are pitifully low.
In the aftermath of the Commons question, some Telegraph readers and others expressed surprise that a Labour MP would raise the issue of free speech and freedom of the press. I understand why.
This government’s record by not implementing the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act is not as good as it should be and some people on the Left claim an unjustified moral superiority over people from a different part of the political spectrum.
This sadly leads to a soft kind of authoritarianism. In my view, the Left should always value freedom, free speech and freedom of the press because there are times when these are the only weapons the poor have to fight injustice.
Exasperated constituents who come to my advice surgeries often want help on how to engage the local or national papers.
Finally, I will leave the last word to the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson: “The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
Graham Stringer is the Labour MP for Blackley and Middleton South