We need to stop policing speech

Monitoring non-crime hate incidents paves the way for two-tier policing

Photo by King's Church International on Unsplash

Police officers knocking on someone’s door to warn them about expressing untoward views is a shocking scenario we might imagine having taken place in a totalitarian regime such as communist East Germany. But, as Allison Pearson recently discovered, this happens in Britain today. 

The Telegraph columnist and best-selling author was visited by the police in response to a complaint they had received about a year-old social media post that allegedly ‘stirred up racial hatred’. Outrageously, Pearson was not informed of the specific post that had caused offence nor was she given the identity of the complainant. Indeed, despite the police turning up at her home, there is even uncertainty as to whether any crime had been committed. The initial accusation was that she had committed a ‘non-crime hate incident’. However, Essex police later asserted that Pearson’s ‘offence’ was being investigated as a criminal matter under section 17 of the Public Order Act 1986, relating to material allegedly ‘likely or intended to cause racial hatred’. 

Whether Pearson is accused of having committed a crime or a ‘non-crime hate incident’ is, to some extent, irrelevant. The impact in both cases is the same: a chilling warning that, in the UK, we do not have free speech but monitored, controlled and regulated speech. Say the wrong thing and the police come knocking on your door. The process is the punishment. You will be questioned, perhaps taken to a police station, humiliated, made to doubt yourself, made to feel like a criminal. Pearson is far from the only person to be subjected to this process. From ex-Conservative Cabinet Minister Amber Rudd to campaigner Caroline Farrow and former police officer Harry Miller, hundreds of thousands of hate crimes have been recorded. I explored the problems with Policing Hate in a report for the think tank Civitas published in 2020. 

Hate crime is defined as ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.’ The College of Policing first issued a Hate Crime Manual in 2005 which issued guidance to officers on recording hate incidents. It stressed that ‘in a modern democratic and diverse society, protecting all the composite groups of that society in accordance with their needs is vital if the service is to continue to police by consent.’ The organisation was essentially carving out a political role for the police force.

The requirement for police to record non-crime hate incidents expanded with the previous Conservative government’s Hate Crime Action Plan published in 2012. It set out ‘core principles’ in tackling hate crime, including challenging the attitudes that underpin hate crime; employing early intervention to prevent it escalating and increasing reporting and access to support by building victim confidence and supporting local partnerships. The door was opened for speech to be policed and the work of officers to be manipulated for political purposes. 

The definition of hate crime exposes the difference between this and other offences. Hate is subjective. It is entirely a matter of perception. If someone feels offended they are - as per the definition above - a victim, regardless of objective evidence or the accused’s intention. As hate is connected to ‘personal characteristics’, it is considered to be an offence against a person’s identity. This makes it easily weaponized by groups determined to present themselves as uniquely victimised. Hate crime entrepreneurs actively recruit ‘victims’ in order to win a fight for moral status, protection and resources.

The College of Policing updated its guidance in 2014 to make clear that, if effective, the number of people prosecuted for hate crime will increase: ‘Targets that see success as reducing hate crime are not appropriate’. This prompted a number of awareness-raising campaigns around hate crime, particularly in the wake of the EU referendum. In April 2015, it became mandatory for all forces to return quarterly information on the number of crimes flagged as being committed online and in 2017, London mayor Sadiq Khan launched the Metropolitan Police’s Online Hate Crime Hub. By 2020, according to the Law Commission’s Consultation on Hate Crime Laws, England and Wales had ‘one of the most comprehensive hate crime reporting and recording systems in the world.’ 

In the final months of the previous Conservative government, and following the high profile case of Harry Miller who won a legal challenge against police recording gender-critical views as non-crime hate incidents, some attempts were made to row back on the recording of non-crime hate incidents. In 2023, police were barred from recording incidents just because someone was offended. Home Secretary Suella Braverman endorsed guidance requiring officers to prioritise freedom of expression over offensive, controversial or derogatory language that upsets people. Officers were to be restricted to recording only incidents motivated by intentional hostility and posing a real risk of escalating into significant harm. However, this left open a degree of subjectivity and could be interpreted liberally by a politicised College of Policing.

Most recently, under the new Labour government, the recording of non-crime hate incidents has become prevalent once more. In September, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper indicated her intention to reverse previous guidance aimed at limiting their recording. As the officers visiting Allison Pearson and the arrest of people for social media posts in the wake of this summer’s riots shows, the policing of speech in the UK has indeed stepped up its pace.

We urgently need to ban police from recording non-crime hate incidents and overturn all so-called ‘hate’ offences. A criminal act  - whether a robbery or a murder - is an offence and should be punished, irrespective of the motive. Recording hate punishes people’s thoughts and emotions. It is an unconscionable act of state over-reach that means there is no such thing as free speech in the UK. It enshrines what’s become known as ‘two tier policing’ in law as only some groups count as victims. And it means police time is spent dealing with hurt feelings rather than physical acts of violence to person or property.