The US tabloids have us all well and truly caught off guard. “Britain is turning into ‘Soviet Russia’,” populist commentator Joe Rogan shouted to his 17 million YouTube subscribers, in response to the police crackdown on violent rioters and those spreading hate speech online last week.
“Civil war (in the UK) is inevitable,” Elon Musk proclaimed to his 194 million followers on his social media platform X.
Fortunately, these outbursts have proven to be hysterical hyperbole, but they have given rise to a debate that will dominate our politics as we begin to move past the recent unrest: how do we draw a line between free speech and reckless social vandalism?
Robert Jenrick, for his part, has chosen a side. Former Home Secretary, famous for his centrist positions, but without too many complications, his attempt to win the leadership of the Conservative Party has suddenly made him a standard-bearer of the new right.
Far-right thugs in Rotherham after a hotel housing asylum seekers was set on fire with more than 130 people inside
But a few days ago he made a brave, bold and meritorious intervention.
“I thought it was wrong that someone could shout ‘Allahu Akbar!’ on the streets of London and not be immediately arrested,” she told Sky News. The statement earned her criticism from both the right and the left, with fellow Conservative MP Baroness Warsi fuming: “This language from Jenrick is more of his usual nasty, divisive rhetoric.”
But even though it was a controversial issue, Jenrick had reaffirmed an important principle: the right to freedom of expression is not, and never has been, absolute. When it turns into incitement – and in turn promotes active violence – it must be restricted.
And, as the recent riots have shown, the right to free speech does not extend to running into a crowded movie theater and shouting “Fire!” nor does it give anyone the right to incite others to burn down a hotel full of immigrant women and children.
Those condemning Jenrick said the phrase “Allahu Akbar” is used daily by practising Muslims as a form of prayer, but as he pointed out, context matters. If it is used in a place of worship, it is fine. But when it is shouted by a crowd of masked men parading down a local high street, it is not. And that distinction must be strictly policed.
Following the sentences handed down to those involved in the riots, several commentators have come to the prisoners’ defence, pointing out seemingly innocuous statements circulating on social media. But, once again, context is everything.
Elon Musk has declared that civil war in the UK is “inevitable”
In the 1980s, I went to a secondary school in south London that was targeted by the National Front for its multi-ethnic character. One of their favourite chants was “There are no blacks in the Union Jack”.
In the context of a debate over the national flag, such a statement is accurate and innocuous. When uttered by people intent on inciting racial unrest, it becomes vile hate speech and must be treated accordingly.
Until two weeks ago, there was broad national consensus on this. Since Britain became a nation of laws, there has never been a time when we have had unfettered freedom of speech.
That’s why we’ve had blasphemy laws, decency laws, racial hatred laws, defamation laws, and contempt of court laws. The strength and focus of those laws have waxed and waned as social attitudes have changed, but restrictions on speech have remained on the statute book for centuries.
Indeed, in recent years this need has become even more evident. The growing threat of political extremism – driven in part by far-right extremists, but above all by Islamic fundamentalism – has led politicians of all stripes to demand action.
That is why hate preachers like Anjem Choudary have been jailed and organisations like Islam4UK and Muslims Against Crusades have rightly been banned.
One of the reasons for these bans was the recognition that there is a difference between genuine peaceful protest and divisive provocation.
In 2010, the small town of Wootton Bassett in Wiltshire became the centre of a solemn ritual. The bodies of fallen soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan were slowly led through the streets, where they were greeted by crowds of locals who stood in silence to honour them as they passed.
Islam4UK threatened to march through the city “not in memory of the invading and ruthless British military” but in memory of the Muslims “killed in the name of democracy and freedom”. There was national outrage and a week later the group was banned.
I cannot believe that anyone seriously thinks that was not an appropriate response from Ministers to what was a clear attempt to incite public disorder. But for some reason, those who have incited public disorder on our streets over the past two weeks are seeing numerous apologists coming to their defence.
One of their main criticisms seems to be that our new government is being somewhat selective in its policing of marches and hate speech, and that its slogan is “Two-Tier-Keir”.
Robert Jenrick speaking at the launch of his bid to become the next leader of the Conservative Party earlier this month
But that overlooks two rather important facts. The first is that Keir Starmer has been consistent in his response to those who create or incite disorder. As head of the Crown Prosecution Service, he spearheaded the response to the 2011 riots by setting up the 24-hour courts that helped bring calm back to the streets – a model used successfully again last week.
Similarly, as Labour leader, he defined himself as a leader who directly confronted the anti-Semitism that had plagued his party. And far from appeasing radical Islamist elements on the far left, he sought to expel them from his movement. That is precisely why Starmer and his candidates faced a fierce campaign by Islamist extremists and their fellow campaigners in numerous seats during the election campaign.
The second key fact is that combating hate speech is not the exclusive purview of the new government. It was Suella Braverman who sought to strengthen the Prevent Anti-Extremism initiative by stating accurately: “Non-violent extremism can certainly lead to violence, but it is a problem even when it doesn’t. It undermines our values and divides communities.”
It was Michael Gove who fought to introduce a new definition of extremism, stating that “the freedoms we cherish, and indeed the democratic principles we are all here to defend, require us to fight and challenge extremists”, even though “most extremist material and activity is not illegal”.
Even Liz Truss, who earlier this week was defending Elon Musk’s increasingly bizarre comments on social media, committed her government to pushing through the Online Safety Act before being ousted from office.
Joe Rogan has declared that Britain is becoming Soviet Russia
The principle is long established. The right to freedom of expression is not unlimited. And in times of heightened community tension, careless conversations can literally cost lives.
So if Musk and his army of social media warriors want to reshape the nature of our public discourse, fine. If they really intend to replace the established media with their brave new brand of citizen journalism, so be it.
But with their new power comes a new responsibility. They have to practice what they preach. And if what they preach is hate, leads to social disorder or interferes with an ongoing investigation into one of the most barbaric crimes in British history, they have to accept the consequences.
Words matter. Words have power. So there is no need to cry and complain about “Stalinist Starmer”. Keyboard warriors need to take responsibility for what they say.
And in the aftermath of the riots, they should be honest about what they are really demanding. Not the right to free speech, but the right to spread prejudice, the right to spread malicious information that could hinder an ongoing murder investigation, the right to incite people to riot.
There has never been a time in our nation’s history when we have enjoyed that right, and fortunately, we never will.