What is "Britishness"? Part 10: Free speech

Free speech is a right that should never be taken for granted. Our ability to speak out and debate matters that concern us can be limited in many ways, particularly where appropriately facilitated environments and frameworks do not exist in the public space. Photo by ocusfocus on 123RF.

Britain has long been held up as a bastion of free speech. Free speech is vital to a healthy democracy, by enabling the powerful to be held to account. It also underpins other civil liberties such as the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. The growth of social media over the past decade means that on the face of it, speech has never been freer or more disintermediated. The barriers to entry are low as anyone with access to the internet and basic technological competence can create a profile and tweet, blog, like, comment and post articles with minimal checks or screening. However, there are insidious developments taking place that are threatening to damage Britain’s reputation as an open and fair society, where people can speak up for themselves and others without fear or unlawful interference.

Before I explore some of these issues in more detail, we need to be clear on what the right to free speech is and is not. Free speech is one of our most important rights but is also one of the most misunderstood. Everyone has the right to free speech that Article 10 of Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) calls the ‘right to freedom of expression.’ Freedom of expression is defined as ‘the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by all means.’

We would all like to think the right of free speech gives us absolute freedom to say whatever we like, to whoever we like, whenever we like. Unfortunately, it does not. As with any individual right, it has to be exercised in a way that respects the rights of others and does not pose a danger to society. For this reason, freedom of expression is a ‘qualified’ right that may be restricted in certain circumstances as prescribed by law. Another way of looking at it is that you can say what you like but sometimes what you say might have consequences for you. Article 10 states:

“The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Nonetheless, free speech is a right we care deeply about, so it is worrying when a Government that claims to be so concerned about upholding individual freedoms, is now planning to limit our right to protest in response to the ‘nuisance’ caused by recent Extinction Rebellion and BLM protests. Clearly, preventing any inconvenience is of far more interest to them than any of the issues raised by these events and doubles down on their existing commitments aimed at suppressing challenge and stifling opposition. They intend to limit judicial reviews to prevent legal challenges to ministerial decisions, such as they have faced with regard to Brexit (Article 50 and prorogation of Parliament) and deportations. Furthermore, their promised ‘update’ to HRA will go only one way, watering down the protections we currently enjoy whilst strengthening the protections for ‘agents of the state’ against accountability for human rights violations.

If this Government is starting to sound like a ‘cake and eat it’ sort of administration, it is because that is exactly the outcome they want. They are conducting a culture war which has nothing to do with freedom of speech but everything to do with promoting right-wing views and silencing opposition. They give the impression that they are defending the right to free expression against alleged censorship by the ‘metropolitan elite.’ This is what lies behind their recent attacks on ‘no-platforming’ of speakers with controversial or provocative views by universities or student unions. It is a storm in a teacup that the universities should be left to sort out themselves but, instead, the Government has whipped it up into a full-blown moral crisis. By proposing a new ‘free speech and academic champion’ to investigate alleged incidents of censorship, the Government is making it appear a matter of grave public concern. What they are really doing is turning the debate from whether certain views deserve to be given a platform, to how these liberal-leaning institutions wish to curtail free speech and deny a platform to those whose views they do not like. The truth is that the Government does not trust our universities to decide what good free speech looks like. Instead, they want to be in control and define it how they want. It is a politically motivated stunt that is designed to appeal to voters by showing the Government acting decisively to defend free speech by addressing a problem that they themselves have manufactured solely for this purpose. By far the most concerning aspect of this for me is that the Government is setting itself up to become the sole arbiter on what is, and is not, acceptable free speech. Their track record does not fill me with confidence. Given that they have that they have already tried to ban schools from teaching anything that is anti-capitalist, told charities to defend our imperial past, and tried to block an appointment because of the candidate’s pro-EU views, this does not feel like a Government that is committed to free speech but rather one that raises the Orwellian spectre of Newspeak.

A consequence of this could be that views previously only been found at the extremities of politics will find their way into the mainstream. Those who would denounce bigotry, misinformation and intolerance are disarmed because the only way they can argue against it is to deny free speech to those whose views they find distasteful, a position they would find hard to defend.

Over the past decade as our politics has become more polarised and hostile, the country has become more divided. Those on the right have been very effective in developing tropes such as ‘political correctness gone mad,’ ‘virtue seeking,’ and ‘cancel culture’ to fend off attacks on their policies by portraying themselves as the victims of a sustained assault on the ‘traditional British values’ they say they believe in. The unfortunate effect of the rise of the cult of ‘political correctness gone mad,’ is to deter people from speaking out for fear of saying the wrong thing or being misconstrued. It makes people think that that they can’t say anything these days without the risk that someone will take offence and report them. The fundamental paradox in the right-wing’s argument is in representing political correctness as the enemy of free speech when, in fact, it should be its friend by helping people to avoid using offensive and discriminatory language and giving a voice to the marginalised. This is precisely why those in power hate it so much and seek to weaponise it in the way they do. For those with power and influence who want to keep things the way they are and believe that attack is the best form of defence, this is the perfect device to shut down criticism and opposition.

Similarly, anyone joining or expressing support for a moral campaign or protest that challenges Government policy is immediately labelled a ‘virtue-signaller.’ The implication is that people are simply aligning with causes to make themselves look good without actually doing anything to change the world. The suggestion that someone’s opinion is driven by vanity is a powerful putdown because it accuses them of being shallow. If that is not enough to put off the Government’s detractors, the term also serves as a dog-whistle to unleash their online trolls to inflict further abuse. We have seen virtue-signalling deployed against the campaign to extend free school meals over school holidays, and in the restrictions imposed on BBC journalists to prevent them from using their own social media accounts to indicate a personal political view. This is totally inconsistent with protecting free speech in this country.

Cancel culture exists but not just on the left as they would have you believe. We depend on the press and media for information but they do not necessarily support free speech. If they suppress information or do not represent the diversity of voices, they can seriously undermine it. We cannot lose sight of who the press and media paymasters are and where their financial and political interests lie. The wealthy can manage news flow through editorial influence or control. All too often, those with no money find they have no voice. For example, there has been an orchestrated campaign against our national broadcaster for many years, led by the right-wing press. It has been fuelled by continual allegations of left-wing bias, anti-government programming and challenges over whether the licence fee represents good value for money, with the aim of undermining its credibility and, ultimately, cancelling it. The BBC, like any human institution, is not perfect but all things considered, it remains an important part of our history and culture and needs to be preserved as a truly independent voice.

We enjoy freer speech in Britain than people do in a lot of other countries around the world but, despite its protestations to the contrary, this is not a Government that wants to actively promote freedom of speech. If we cut through their smokescreens, we can see how they are actually seeking to constrain it. Free speech is undermined when the powers that be try to manipulate what can or cannot be said and exert control over the dialogue. To uphold and value free speech means establishing appropriate environments and frameworks in the public space to enable issues to be safely and constructively debated. The focus must be on encouraging inquiry and working towards good outcomes in terms of what can realistically be achieved to make our country, and the world in general, a better place.