The UK needs to watch out for it’s civil liberties

We have seen two very worrying laws come to the surface this week, one has already been passed and the other will be debated. Both of these will be very restricting to the people of the UK. The first is the Hate crime bill that has passed in the Scottish parliament. The second is the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill currently being debated in the House of Commons. Though both of these have been brought in with the best of intentions, it would seem that governments have enjoyed imposing more restrictions on people’s lives and will continue to do so after Covid.

Starting with the bill in Scotland it is important to point out the potential restrictions on freedom of expression have been addressed in part. For example, you cannot be prosecuted for merely just stating a belief that may offend people. The cases given were the belief that males cannot transition to females, campaigning for the rights of Palestinians and that homosexuality is a sin. On the surface, it would seem a good thing that people’s protected characteristics have been further protected. Of course, people should not face prejudice for these things. However, where this law becomes particularly worrying is when and where it should be exercised.

In October 2020 the main driver behind this law, Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf, suggested that people should be reporting offensive conversations in the home and that journalists and play-writes should be subject to this also. To tackle the first point this fits with a trend that has been present particularly since the outbreak of Covid. Priti Patel encouraged people to report their neighbours for breaking restrictions to the Police. This sentiment is in line with that of East Germany during the Cold War, not a free democratic state in the 21st Century. Likewise censoring Journalists and play-writes in this way will be very damaging to the discourse around these issues. Culture plays a huge part in how we see the world and yes will likely offend people when tackling difficult subjects.

This law has the aim of restricting bigotry in Scotland and that idea is great. However, without wanting to sound like an American pro-gun nut, this is not done by restricting speech, it will be done by having more open conversations. You will not stop a bigot from being a bigot by throwing them in prison. If anything you will likely entrench them further in their views. You will reach a more positive conclusion if you speak with them openly. They may offend people in the process, but there is the chance they may come to understand the opposing view and feel differently moving forward. Restricting what people can write about will cause the same issue. A film such as This is England is a great example of how offensive pieces of art can still have a great power to impact the audience. The character Combo is a deeply racist character that holds objectively abhorrent views. However, the film brilliantly highlights the destructive power these views have and gives a great insight into what often motivates people such as these. The film is not racist, but uses racism to tell its story. Were this new bill to restrict art pieces such as this it would devalue our culture, not enrich it.

The law currently being debated in the house of commons restricts people in a very different way. If it passes it will allow the Police to implement restrictions on people’s ability to protest, even if it is just one person standing with a placard saying ‘Down with this sort of thing’. Protests can be deeply irritating things. I can only imagine how frustrating it was to have your day so heavily disrupted by extinction rebellion when they were protesting. But, like it or not, protest and dissent is a vitally important part of a functioning democracy. The Police would be able to dictate the start and end time of protests should this law come into place. I can’t help, but foresee this being exercised for political purposes where protests they are more sympathetic to get longer to affirm their stance.

This law will also mean that you can face up to ten years in prison for defacing a statue. It is interesting to note that is less than the maximum sentence you would face for racially aggravated assault and equal to the maximum sentence you would face for sexual assault. This is utterly bizarre. The summer of statue toppling was not something I necessarily endorsed. I agree that statues of individuals such as Edward Colston should not adorn our streets any longer. It would have been a wonderfully triumphant moment of unity if all the people of Bristol congregated to see this removed legally and placed in a museum to contextualise his life. However, this was tried and blocked by the local council. At this point an action such as that as the one in the summer was inevitable. To claim this is the equivalent of racially motivated assault or rape is a huge overreaction.

Freedom in the UK looks like it will continue to be restricted long after this pandemic reduces. This affliction has impacted both sides of the aisle and is a worrying trend. It cannot be stressed enough that the impact this will have on freedom, discourse and culture in the UK will be deeply damaging. We can only hope that the latter of the two laws does not pass in its current form and those challenging the former continue in their fight.