People who question mass migration or criticise the transgender lobby will be protected from hate crime prosecutions under proposed new freedom of speech laws.
In a major report on hate crime published on Tuesday, the Law Commission said that people with outspoken views on transgender, cultural, political and immigration issues should be protected from the threat of prosecution for stirring up hatred.
It would mean freedom of speech safeguards for people who believe transgender women are not real women, who criticise cultural practices such as arranged marriages, oppose any immigration or attack the policies of countries such as Israel or China.
The Law Commission warned that without protections written into law, overzealous officials could mount hate crime investigations into people that would have a “chilling effect” on legitimate debate and people’s right to freedom of expression.
Its overhaul of hate crimes law, the biggest for decades, said that private conversations should also be protected, to ensure people were not prosecuted for dinner table talk.
Darren Grimes was investigated over his YouTube interview where David Starkey, the historian, suggested that slavery was not genocide Darren Grimes was investigated over his YouTube interview in which David Starkey, the historian, suggested that slavery was not genocide CREDIT: Jeff Gilbert for The Telegraph It said: “The understandable importance that law enforcement authorities place on being seen to tackle hate crime may mean they do not give sufficient consideration to the implications of their actions on freedom of expression when considering how to respond to allegations of ‘hate speech’.
“We believe that insofar as the law itself may be giving rise to ill-founded complaints that interfere with the right to freedom of expression, the correct way to address this is by clearly defining the limits of the stirring up offences.
“It is possible that in making clear that the law does not criminalise, for instance, discussion of controversial topics, our recommendations will enable law enforcement officials to deal robustly in dismissing complaints that do not amount to a criminal offence.”
As revealed last week in The Telegraph, the Law Commission rejected classifying misogyny as a hate crime alongside race and religion, but said people who stir up hostility on the basis of sex or gender should be prosecuted for hate crimes.
However, it said that this new offence should be allied to a change in the law to protect gender-critical views. These beliefs that sex is binary and immutable was a longstanding feminist strand of thinking that deserved to be heard in a democratic society, even if it upset people, it said.
It said such views should be protected from mistaken potential hate crime prosecutions, citing Harry Miller, a former police officer, investigated by Humberside Police for allegedly posting transphobic tweets questioning if transgender women were real women.
For immigration, it cited Amber Rudd, the former home secretary, reported to police for suggesting that employers reveal their proportions of foreign workers; and Darren Grimes, investigated over his YouTube interview where David Starkey, the historian, suggested that slavery was not genocide.
The Law Commission said all three cases had occurred in areas such as race, disability and trans rights where there were no free speech clauses in the Public Order Act of 1986, and which it now recommended should be amended.
“We recommend there should be new protections for expression targeted at cultural practices, individual countries and their governments, and discussion of immigration, citizenship and asylum; and protection for gender critical views and the use of language which expresses them,” it said.
Maya Forstater, who won a High Court case after losing her job for saying people cannot change biological sex, said it was vindication for her battle to say basic truths about the two sexes and that pronouns cannot be covered by blanket rules.
Maya Forstater won a High Court case after losing her job for saying people cannot change biological sex Maya Forstater won a High Court case after losing her job for saying people cannot change biological sex CREDIT: Eddie Mulholland for The Telegraph Stephen Evans, the chief executive of the Secular Society, said: “Harmful religious and cultural practices, such as genital cutting, forced marriage and non-stun slaughter, deserve serious scrutiny. Discussion and debate around such matters should not be chilled by the prospect of being prosecuted [for racial hatred].”
However, David Green, the director of think tank Civitas, said: “I would abolish all hate crime. I don’t think there is any need. It is reinforcing identity politics, the ideology that society is divided into victims and their oppressors.”
The Commission also confirmed that the Government should consider a new offence of public sexual harassment, as more effective than classing misogyny a hate crime, and reforming hate crime laws to give disabled and LGBT+ people the same protections as with race and religion.
