#FreeSpeechForGood

Together we can safeguard freedom of speech in the public square

#FreeSpeechForGood

Act now and ask your MP to sign the Parliamentary Motion to protect free speech in public spaces.

Step 1 of 3

Post Code

The below message will be sent to your MP:

Hidden

MP Signed

Mail Content

To my representative in Parliament,

On 28 February 2022, the House of Commons voted to reject amendments brought by the House of Lords designed to protect freedom of speech and protest in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (PCSC) 2021.

My primary concern is that the Bill has been pitched by the Government as the first major ‘update’ to public order legislation in 35 years. According to the Government, the updates are needed to ensure police have adequate powers to address seriously disruptive protests.

That in mind, one of the most pressing problems over the last three decades and increasingly so in recent years is the difficulty law enforcers have faced in striking the balance between the legitimate use of force to prevent seriously disruptive protests and ensuring that peaceful expressions of public dissent are not unlawfully prevented.

Many people are already being arrested for expressing their religious, political and philosophical convictions in public, due to ambiguous wording within the Public Order Act 1986 and the resulting inconsistent interpretation and enforcement by police.

Although the government has sought to reassure members that the Bill will not tamper with fundamental rights, there is currently nothing on the face of the Bill that explicitly protects fundamental rights or mandates training for police officers. Frontline police officers enforce law, not the assurances of the executive.

The Bill will significantly increase police powers (allowing them to impose practically any condition they consider necessary) and open the door for values-based policing, rather than tackling the root concern of the public: violent and extremely disruptive disorder. The result is the erosion of our hard-fought for rights to free speech and assembly.

A strong voice from MPs across the political spectrum is now urgent. I would be grateful if you could consider signing the Freedom of Speech Early Day Motion (https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/59273/freedom-of-speech) which aims to protect freedom in public order legislation and equip enforcement agencies to prevent serious public disorder whilst protecting fundamental rights.

As the Bill returns to the House of Lords, I would also be most grateful if you could seriously consider a compromise that at least includes some free speech-affirming amendments on the face of the Bill.

Yours sincerely,

-----------

Right to freedom of speech

Freedom of speech has been protected by the law in the UK for as long, if not longer than any other country in the world, through our common law. Freedom of speech has now acquired constitutional protection through our accession to the European Convention on Human Rights as incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Courts have consistently held freedom of speech as a fundamental right in a democratic society. Free speech is the vehicle through which citizens can express dissent, and the government can be held to account for violations of all other rights.
However, these rights are not absolute; the government can restrict them where necessary and proportionate for various reasons, including the prevention of disorder or crime. In public spaces, restrictions on freedom of speech are most frequently imposed under the Public Order Act 1986.

Public Order Act 1986

The 1986 Act gives police officers powers to tackle behaviour that is threatening, abusive, and seriously disorderly.

The provision most routinely used to curtail speech in public spaces is section 5 of the Public Order Act, which criminalise words or behaviour deemed to be "threatening or abusive".  The provision was originally purposed to tackle the numerous instances of violent and intimidating behaviour of football hooligans in the 1980s. However, over time the application of section 5 expanded. Individuals were increasingly prosecuted in circumstances not envisaged by Parliament and which unduly restricted otherwise lawful speech. For example, section 5 has been interpreted to criminalise comedians, street preachers, and political activists for simply engaging in speech considered offensive by bystanders. Examples include an Oxford student asking a police officer, "Do you realise your horse is gay?" which the police force described as homophobic and "offensive to people passing by", to a 16-year-old holding up a placard saying, "Scientology is a dangerous cult". This year alone a number of street evangelists have been arrested due to their biblically-based views on marriage, sexuality and life.

2013 reforms and continued curtailment of free speech rights

In 2013, Parliament amended section 5 of the Act to address the improper criminalisation of merely 'insulting' words and behaviour. Parliament acknowledged that the fundamental right of freedom of speech necessarily included speech that was shocking, disturbing, and offensive. A failure to protect such speech would contravene the UK's obligations under international law and the Parliament thus removed the word 'insulting' from section 5 of the Public Order Act in the hope that it would stay the unjust arrests of legitimate viewpoints, even if considered offensive by members of the public.

Unfortunately, evidence suggests that the intent and will of Parliament to protect free speech in public spaces continues to be frustrated. Members of the public are repeatedly arrested and prosecuted merely for expressing unpopular viewpoints. Speech that was formerly considered 'insulting' has now simply been reinterpreted as 'abusive'. Prosecution guidance has not been updated to reflect the intent of Parliament to protect free speech.

Furthermore, in a remarkable departure from our legal tradition on free speech, local Councils have interpreted the law as permitting the introduction of blanket censorship zones, criminalising otherwise peaceful and lawful speech in specified public locations (see section 59 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2014 section 59). Recent examples include expressions ranging from non-abusive swearing to a blanket ban on prayer (including silent prayer). Human rights experts have widely criticised the marginalisation of fundamental rights by local authorities, and the issue has largely gone under the radar.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Bill 2021

The continued suppression of lawful speech in public spaces signals a lack of clarity in the law. Whilst free speech remains a fundamental right under the Human Rights Act, the broad enforcement powers given to police officers and the vague provisions allowing for broad, subjective assessments means that the right to freedom of speech has, in practice, consistently been undermined, marginalised or ignored.

As the first major update to public order legislation in nearly 35 years, the Bill presents an opportunity for Parliament to effectively protect free speech in public spaces in a way which the law has hitherto been unable to do. Concerningly, the Bill in its current form makes no mention of protecting free speech. On the contrary, the Bill includes a number of vague terms and broad powers that will inevitably erode free speech rights to an extent unknown to post-war England and Wales.

Part 3 (clauses 55-61) – the free speech restricting provisions restrict

The provisions impacting freedom of speech can be found in Part 3 of the Bill (clauses 55-61), which ostensibly relate to protest but also have serious ramifications for freedom of speech in general. The government's stated reason for introducing Part 3 is to empower police officers to take a more proactive approach in managing highly disruptive protests causing serious disruption to the public – such as the Extinction Rebellion protest of April  2019. However, in practice, the Bill will give police officers the discretion to arrest individuals based on the content of their speech if it merely risks causing, for example, serious 'unease' (clause 54) and 'inconvenience' (clause 60).

These far-reaching restrictions on speech are compounded by the government's proposals to significantly increase sentences should an individual fall foul of the vague provisions above (Clause 60(4)); lower the threshold for pre-charge bail conditions – allowing officers to restrict freedoms even where there is insufficient evidence of a criminal offence (Clause 43), and award broad powers to the Secretary of State to define the ambit of criminality in the future without allowing meaningful parliamentary scrutiny (Clause 55(4)).

In practice, these provisions will not only lead to more confusion on the part of police officers (who have already remarked that they did not ask for the powers proposed and that the Bill is 'harmful to democracy')  but will almost certainly lead to more unjust arrests, increased litigation in the courts and, ultimately, a chilling effect on freedom of speech in public spaces.

Mail Content

To my representative in Parliament,

Thank you for defending freedom by signing the Freedom of Speech Early Day Motion (https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/59273/freedom-of-speech). If it progresses, it will ensure that public order legislation protects free speech and improved training for enforcement agencies, while preventing serious disorder.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Bill will limit my freedom to speak openly, since the Government has rejected key Lords pro-freedom amendments to it.

Your help is vital to defend citizens facing arrest for expressing their religious, political and philosophical convictions in public, due to police interpreting and enforcing the Public Order Act 1986 inconsistently.

Although it’s not too late to protect freedom of speech and assembly in the UK, time is running out. I would be most grateful if you could consider passing on the motion to your colleagues in the Lords and the Commons.

Yours sincerely,

----------- 
 
Right to freedom of speech

Public Order Act 1986

The 1986 Act gives police officers powers to tackle behaviour that is threatening, abusive, and seriously disorderly.

2013 reforms and continued curtailment of free speech rights

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Bill 2021

Part 3 (clauses 55-61) – the free speech restricting provisions restrict

How would you like to receive updates?(Required)

E-mail

E-mail & Post

By submitting this form, I agree to ADF UK forwarding the above message, my name, address and email address to my MP. I understand my data may be retained for monitoring purposes. See our privacy policy for more information.

Why is this important?

TOGETHER WE CAN SAFEGUARD FREE EXPRESSION BY

Reforming the law to remove the ambiguous wording used to unjustly arrest those expressing deeply held views. Adding a comprehensive free speech clause to public order legislation.

Why isn’t the current law protecting free speech in the public square?

71-year-old John Sherwood has been a Pastor in North London for 35 years. As part of his Christian calling, he preaches in the open air. But in May 2020, local authorities censored him for the apparent use of “abusive words” likely to cause “harassment, alarm or distress”. “I was only saying what the Bible says – I wasn’t wanting to hurt anyone or cause offence,” refuted Sherwood.

Click to read more

Introducing specific training and guidance for the police, prosecutors and courts to better balance freedom of speech rights with ensuring public order.

What might the new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Bill mean for free speech?

The PCSC Bill seeks to strengthen police powers to respond to public order incidents and protests.
We are concerned that the Bill could make things worse for those expressing deeply held views which includes Christians wanting to share about their faith publicly.

Click to read more