How Starmer and His Allies Are Planning to Curtail Speech in Britain
How Starmer and His Allies Are Planning to Curtail Speech in Britain
The four plans we know of so far...
It has been exactly 48 days since Keir Starmer and the Labour Party won the general election by default. In that timeframe, a series of controversial plans have emerged, which critics have characterised as blatant assaults on our civil liberties. These developments have sparked intense debates about the direction of the UK under Starmer's leadership and whether our freedoms will soon be systematically eroded, if not, significantly undermined.
Here is a closer look at these alarming initiatives.
Misogyny Extremism
Days ago, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper ordered a review into tackling violence against women and girls with the same vigour as far-right and Islamic extremism. Part of this review will focus on the rise of "misogynistic influencers" who are reportedly radicalising young men.
The thing is, any form of violence against women and girls is obviously already illegal, as is encouraging it. The Equality Act of 2010 also explicitly prohibits discrimination based on sex, covering both direct and indirect forms. This means that all material misogyny is already punishable by law.
What Labour could have done is ensure that instances of violence, explicit incitement to it, and discriminatory practices (such as wrongful dismissals) are prosecuted more harshly. Instead, the government is directing its focus towards controlling speech.
Higher Education Act 2023
On July 26th, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson announced her intention to halt the implementation of the Freedom of Speech Act 2023. This act ensured students at universities across England could freely express their views without fear of censorship.
It also included the creation of a "free speech tsar" within the Office for Students to address complaints and even allowed students, teachers, and/or employees to sue universities that censored them.
Phillipson justified her decision by claiming that the act would be "burdensome on providers and on the Office for Students (OfS)." Yet, in the same breath, she welcomed more regulation for "harassment and sexual misconduct." Imposing burdens is okay, just not for free speech.
Specialist Police Divisions Target "Hate Influencers"
In response to the Southport mass immigration protests and riots, specialist officers have been assigned to investigate hundreds of social media posts suspected of "spreading hate and inciting violence."
A statement published by The National Police Chiefs' Council on August 10th said:
"Specialist officers have been tasked with pursuing online offenders and so-called influencers responsible for spreading hate and inciting violence on a large scale in the wake of violent disorder".
Note the conflation of "hate" with "violence". Investigating explicit incitement to violence is one thing, but investigating them for hate? Who’s defining hate here? The Home Office (ie Yvette Cooper) oversees policing, although the police remain operationally independent. It is unclear if this is directive derived from Cooper or the policing hierarchy.
The current definition of hate, as provided by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and police, allows for any offence perceived by the victim—or any other person—to be motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person because of their perceived race: or religion; or sexual orientation; or transgender identity. (I had no idea “transgender identity” was in there).
In short, if someone perceives your "offence" to be motivated by "hate" that can worsen your sentence if found guilty or if one pleads guilty.
Critics have accused various police departments of prioritising online “hate” crimes over physical crimes. Last year, over 200,000 burglaries in England and Wales went unsolved. That works out to three-quarters of all reported break-ins, with only 6% resulting in a suspect being charged.
Conversely, the CPS states the charging and conviction rate for hate crimes stands at 87% and 85%. It is likely, however, that this includes both online and physical “hate” offences.
Banning "Fake News" But Not "Real News"
On August 9th, visiting Scotland Yard, Starmer announced his intention to "look more broadly at social media" in the wake of recent riots and protests. Nick Thomas-Symonds, Starmer’s Cabinet Office minister, subsequently revealed they would revisit the Online Safety Act 2023.
The act, originally passed by the Conservatives, grants the government the power to force social media companies to remove "legal but harmful" content, with hefty fines for non-compliance.
Notably, it outlines special exemptions for journalists, meaning that content posted by news publishers is not subject to removal by tech firms. This creates a paradox where so-called "fake news" from individuals can be censored, but "real news" from established media outlets remains protected. Accuracy doesn’t appear to play much of a part.
Cheshire Police recently used the act to arrest a woman who misnamed the Southport child murderer Axel Rudakubana. Despite claiming she did so unknowingly, the police partly arrested her for "knowingly sending false communications" that caused "non-trivial physical or psychological harm”. They did not have any proof this was the case.
Starmer chillingly reinforced his stance during the same visit to Scotland Yard, stating, "we’re due sentencing for online behaviour... whether you’re directly involved or whether you’re remotely involved, you’re culpable, and you will be put before the courts if you’ve broken the law."
He could mean those who directly incited violence, but his vagueness seems deliberate to discourage anyone from drawing attention to an issue he'd prefer to keep quiet—mass and illegal immigration.
After all, minorities make up a significant proportion of his base, if the demographic breakdown of the 2019 general election vote is anything to go by. (They haven’t released data for the 2024 general election yet).
Of course, these are all plans at the moment. But something tells me it won’t be long before they become active policy…
Do you think if things stay the way they are our best days are ahead of us?
Are you going to sit down and watch as our media/government officials push for yet more invasive, authoritarian, censorious policy?
If you want to do something today to help change that, you can opt for a paid subscription and help citizen journalists like me attempting to stop it…
George Orwell warned. We never listened because we were too busy chasing money to buy things we didn't need. With the rest of our time we were conforming. We forgot that morality, love and dedication - things that take effort to live - cannot be bought. Consequently, we suffer our slavery we purchased.
Who actually decides what is fake or real "news" or which news media... so much for the puppeticians..🤑🤑🤑🤑
Freedom of expression and choice is the fundamental human right.