Yahoo News When it comes to investigating 'non-criminal' incidents, proportionality is key
As East Antrim MP Sammy Wilson stood up in the House of Commons on Thursday to demand that police focus on what he terms “real crime,” he echoed the concern shared by many people in Northern Ireland who are frustrated as we deal with high levels of violence, burglary, and drug offences.
However, in calling to “unpick legislation” and deprioritise “non-criminal hate incidents” we risk setting a dangerous precedent that could undermine both public trust in policing and disrupt the balance between free speech and protection from persecution.
To many in Northern Ireland who are reading Sammy Wilson’s comments, they may seem compelling as paramilitary gangs continue to terrorise neighbourhoods, violent crimes, particularly against women are shattering lives, and drugs are devastating families.
READ MORE: Mary Lou McDonald tells Dublin students their best years will be in a united Ireland
Some people, particularly on social media, often ask why police resources should be spent on incidents that don’t even breach the criminal threshold? For Sammy Wilson and many like him, the answer is clear and that is that the police should stop “acting as the thought police” and refocus on “protecting public safety, not arbitrating hurt feelings.”
But when looking at the issue more broadly, this is clearly an oversimplification. Policing is not just about fighting crime, it’s about maintaining social cohesion and protecting all citizens’ rights.
We know all too well that hate incidents, even when not criminal, can create hostile environments that leave individuals and communities feeling unsafe. They can escalate, laying the groundwork for real violence as we saw on our streets this summer. To suggest that these incidents should be entirely deprioritised not only undermines their significance but also risks sending the message that prejudice and intimidation are permissible as long as they fall short of breaking the law.
What is clear though is that when discussing issues such as this, there is a need for balance. The right to free speech and freedom of expression is clearly enshrined in law and must be protected. At the same time, people have a right to live free from discrimination, harassment, and persecution. When the police investigate non-criminal hate incidents, they are often responding to this tension, aiming to defuse potential conflicts before they escalate.
Take, for example, the case of Daily Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson, whose social media post following the October 7th attacks sparked major controversy. Pearson’s now-deleted tweet accused officers of smiling alongside individuals she described as “Jew haters.” The post drew sharp criticism and the police launched an investigation into alleged incitement of racial hatred. While the Crown Prosecution Service ultimately concluded that there was no reasonable chance of conviction, the incident demonstrates the high stakes involved in such cases.
This incident also highlights the challenges of subjective interpretation. One person’s expression of opinion can be another’s incitement of hatred. In these grey areas, it’s easy to see why police involvement may appear to be excessive, but it’s equally easy to see how unchecked hate speech can put vulnerable groups at risk.
The crux of Sammy Wilson’s argument that the Government should rewrite laws to curb police focus on non-criminal hate incidents raises a deeper concern about political interference in policing, which given Northern Ireland’s history, should be of major concern to us all.
Policing in the UK is supposed to operate independently of direct political control to ensure impartiality and protect the rule of law. When politicians start dictating which laws police should enforce or which incidents they should investigate, it opens the door to selective enforcement and potential abuses of power.
In Northern Ireland, where divisions still run deep, the idea of scaling back responses to hate incidents could have profound implications and could lead to communities who are already wary of the state and the PSNI to view such moves as indifference to their safety and further erode their trust in policing and justice.
However, the current system is not perfect. The investigation of non-criminal incidents must be proportionate, transparent, and mindful of limited resources. Cases like Pearson’s, where the police reportedly spent a year investigating a single tweet, understandably raise questions about efficiency and priorities. However, reform should focus on improving decision-making processes and ensuring proportionality, not abandoning the field altogether.
While Sammy Wilson’s call to “stop and reassess priorities” is also not without merit, we must not lose sight of the broader role that policing plays in safeguarding both physical and social wellbeing. The danger lies in assuming that these roles are mutually exclusive.
Ultimately, the debate sparked by Sammy Wilson’s comments is not just about police priorities and boils down to what kind of society we want to live in. Do we value free speech so highly that we are willing to tolerate hostility and exclusion? Or do we accept limits on expression to ensure that everyone feels safe and respected?
Striking the right balance will never be easy, but the answer cannot be for politicians to take a hammer to the scales. Instead, we need thoughtful, evidence-based reform that respects the complexity of the challenges facing modern policing. If we fail to get this right, we risk not only undermining public safety but also sacrificing the very principles of fairness and justice that policing is meant to uphold.
Sammy Wilson’s comments may resonate with a public desperate for solutions, but it is a solution that carries too high a cost. Instead of unpicking laws, the focus should be on building a policing system that protects both our freedoms and our communities.
For all the latest news, visit the Belfast Live homepage here and sign up to our politics newsletter here.
