HATE INCIDENT POLICING
Saturday 15 February featured reports of the Harry Miller case in the High Court, a triumph for free speech and a wakeup call about use of police resources. Mr Miller had been reported to the police for alleged transphobic tweeting, recorded by the police as a non-crime hate incident. Mr Miller was investigated and told by the police he was at risk of breaking the law. Mr Miller took Humberside police, and the College of Police who issue hate incident guidelines, to court. The judge, who was not reported to be critical of the tweets, found overwhelmingly in his favour as regards the Humberside police. The case raises two big issues.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
The first is that in the UK people are free to express themselves as long as a crime is not committed. The judge emphasised the vital importance of free speech, which includes being able to say “not only the inoffensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, and that the freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having”. (See Sherbhert https://sherbhert.com/freedom-of-thought-and-speech-time-for-resilience/ ). Is it not time to push those who are easily offended to be resilient and argue the righteousness of their cause rather than demand redress against what is simply another opinion? It is vital that the media, institutions and citizens whenever possible continue to promote freedom of expression, which is the bedrock of freedom generally, particularly as minority interest groups- including at Universities- seek to censor and close down free thinking. Repeating Barack Obama “I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so”, promoting both resilience in the face of offence and the freedom that lies behind it.
HATE INCIDENT REPORTING – WHY WASTE POLICE TIME?
Reports say that the judge recorded “in this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society”. The police visited Mr Miller at work because of his political opinions not because he had committed a crime, following they believed guidelines issued by the College of Police. Those guidelines require police to record hate incidents even though there is no crime committed.
(See Sherbhert https://sherbhert.com/police-resources-never-enough-unless-leadership-forces-change/ ) What is a hate incident- is it a few words which might give offence but are not violent? Taking offence is so subjective that allegations can so arise because of a person’s hurt feelings. Oh dear! If there is no crime, why report an incident. The judge found the guidance to be lawful – not the same as approving it.
The police are overstretched and cannot deal with a lot of serious crime for lack of resources among other things. What is the point of using those resources to record non-crime, such as tweets when there is no crime to investigate? If this must be done for reasons that are beyond political correctness, then have another body, which is less busy and hopefully less costly, do the recording. Also, in recording such data, it is essential for justice that it cannot be used to a person’s detriment – unfortunately it can as things stand, particularly as, it is believed, the information shows up in enhanced criminal record checks.
A victory for freedom of speech is to be celebrated, but there is here a warning that policing of political or moral or other opinion, where no crime is evident, is to be abhorred and decried wherever it appears. Let us ask our police only to focus on protecting society against serious crime, and let us not ask them to do tasks which waste their time, are based in political correctness, which are largely a matter of taste and which offend the basic law of freedom of expression. The same principles may well be applicable to other public institutions and services.
