Taking a liberty

22/12/2024

‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference.’ (United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

As a teenager, I was once stopped by police in the street for wearing a t-shirt I’d just had printed with, ‘Nazis Are No Fun’ emblazoned on the front. It was a caustic and satirical anti-Nazi slogan at the time and the police claimed that, by wearing it in public, I was ‘inciting violence with the (hard right) National Front (NF)’. They instructed me to take off the t-shirt immediately. ‘It doesn’t mention the NF’, I objected with typical teenage sass. The police responded, ‘You know full well who it’s talking about.’ I pushed back again, ‘But the NF says it’s not a neo-Nazi party.’ They rolled their eyes, gave up, walked away and told me not to wear it again. I wore it again.

Those were the days when freedom of expression was still regarded in the UK as a sacred tenet of democracy. To be honest, I had no intention of provoking violence – far from it – but I did want to make a public statement of resistance to the influence of what I saw as a growing, pernicious ideology at the time. Fair enough too: the police were justified in raising their concern about how others might react but, notably, they didn’t arrest me, nor slap a Non-Crime Hate Incident (NCHI) record on me. They tried to convince me and to caution me, conversationally rather than threateningly, of the potential risks of what I was doing. How things have changed since then.

Against this backdrop, I was pleased recently to see a think tank publish a research paper titled, ‘Non-Crime Hate Incidents: A Chilling Distraction from the Public’s Priorities on Policing’ which recommended in no uncertain terms: ‘The Government should legislate to abolish, in its entirety, the recording of Non-Crime Hate Incidents by the police.’ I was also encouraged to see this sentiment echoed last week by Lord Nick Herbert, Chairman of the (UK) College of Policing – albeit in softer terms: advocating that the government should consider scrapping the (NCHI) practice in its present form. Freedom of speech is painfully hard won and all too easily lost.

Speak – while you still can.

12 Comments

Phyllis Sanderson

22/12/2024 04:01:45 pm

Well, aren’t you a teenage rebel! It takes guts to wear a shirt like that, Nick, knowing it might ruffle a few feathers. I have to say, though, the police seemed almost comically overreactive in their response. Eye-rolls and all. "Inciting violence"? Really? I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry at how absurd that sounds.

But on a serious note, NCHIs are exactly the kind of bureaucratic nonsense that makes people roll their eyes at the police too. You can’t just slap "hate" on every opinion someone finds uncomfortable. It cheapens the term. If someone doesn’t like your t-shirt, they can look the other way. Let’s save the police's resources for actual crimes, not thought-policing. Keep wearing the shirt, and maybe print a few extras for your friends.

Nick Wright

26/12/2024 11:49:46 am

Thank you, Phyllis. You made me smile. :) 'NCHIs are exactly the kind of bureaucratic nonsense that makes people roll their eyes at the police too.' - sad. but true. The police need to be released to prevent and deal with actual crime, not waste their time on policing thought and opinion.

Lydia Emms

22/12/2024 04:03:34 pm

Hey Nick. Reading this brought back memories of my own experiences as a teenager. I once got in trouble for speaking out against school policies I found unfair, and while it wasn’t nearly as serious as your run-in with the police, it gave me my first taste of how those in power can silence dissent under the guise of "maintaining order." It’s disheartening to think that things have only gotten worse. The idea of a Non-Crime Hate Incident feels Orwellian. Are we really living in a world where expressing an opinion can put you on some kind of list? It’s terrifying. I’m so glad you stood your ground back then, and I hope more people will follow your example. If we don’t fight for our rights now, what kind of world are we leaving for the next generation? Keep writing Nick.

26/12/2024 11:54:03 am

Thank you, Lydia. 'The idea of a Non-Crime Hate Incident feels Orwellian. Are we really living in a world where expressing an opinion can put you on some kind of list?' Yes, indeed. See:

https://www.nick-wright.com/blog/silence-d
https://www.nick-wright.com/blog/minority-report
https://www.nick-wright.com/blog/truth-telling

Bob Freestone

22/12/2024 04:05:41 pm

Nick, freedom of speech is vital, but it's also not without boundaries.

Your story is an interesting one but I can't help wondering: would the same slogan have been as innocuous today? The rise of far-right ideologies and increasing polarisation in society make the stakes much higher now. The t-shirt might still be satire but context matters and interpretations of such expressions can vary wildly.

While I agree that NCHIs should be re-evaluated, I don't think abolishing them entirely is the answer. There are real threats posed by hateful rhetoric and ignoring them outright could lead to harm.

Perhaps what we need is a more nuanced approach that protects free speech without enabling those who weaponize it to spread hatred.

26/12/2024 12:00:53 pm

Thank you, Bob. That's a fair challenge and helpful perspective. Yes, in the UK there are already legal limits in place against actual hate speech, including inciting violence - which are intended for that purpose (see: https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crime).

NCHI records aren't imposed for actual crimes. They are imposed unilaterally by the police - without reference to a judicial process - and can have severely damaging and distressing impacts on those on whom they are imposed.

'Perhaps what we need is a more nuanced approach that protects free speech without enabling those who weaponize it to spread hatred.' I agree and, in my view, NCHIs are a step way too far in the wrong direction.

Simon Cruz

22/12/2024 04:07:31 pm

Hi Nick. How come you got to be so radical at such a young age? The closest I've come to that is once signing a petition. Pathetic, I know.

26/12/2024 12:03:45 pm

Hi Simon. I don't know. I honestly can't remember not being an advocate for justice and against oppression - including passionate animal care and rights activism as a child. I believe God placed that spirit within me from a very young age. And - hey, don't knock yourself. Signing a petition is better than doing nothing.

Graham Pickering

22/12/2024 04:09:46 pm

Hi Nick The incident with your t-shirt perfectly illustrates the precarious balance between protecting public order and preserving individual freedoms. While I understand the police's caution, their approach exemplified a time when dialogue and common sense prevailed, rather than the heavy-handedness we see today with practices like recording Non-Crime Hate Incidents (NCHIs).

I wholeheartedly agree with the think tank's recommendation to abolish NCHIs. Such measures, though perhaps well-intentioned, often stifle honest debate and discourage people from speaking out on contentious but crucial issues.

Your actions as a teenager, though simple, represented resistance against hate. Ironic that they could be misconstrued as incitement. If we lose the right to express dissent, we lose the very foundation of democracy.

26/12/2024 12:05:54 pm

Thanks Graham and well said. Things are sliding far in a dangerous direction. 'Such measures, though perhaps well-intentioned, often stifle honest debate and discourage people from speaking out on contentious but crucial issues...If we lose the right to express dissent, we lose the very foundation of democracy.' I agree completely.

Judith Fraser

22/12/2024 04:15:28 pm

Your perspective on freedom of expression is interesting, but I fundamentally disagree with the conclusions you've drawn. While I respect the principle of free speech, it is not, and never has been, an unlimited right. Words and actions have consequences and context matters deeply. Your t-shirt may have been a satirical statement to you, but to others it could easily have been seen as provocative or inflammatory. The police weren’t infringing on your rights. They were trying to prevent a potential escalation of tensions.

The practice of recording Non-Crime Hate Incidents (NCHIs) serves a vital purpose. It’s a tool for monitoring patterns of behaviour that could lead to harm or escalate into actual crimes. It’s not about silencing dissent but about recognizing the real-world impact of speech in a society where hate and division are growing threats. Calls to abolish NCHIs entirely fail to acknowledge the balance between individual freedoms and community safety. These records aren’t about censorship. They’re about accountability. Your actions as a teenager might seem harmless in hindsight but the reality is that words, slogans, and symbols can incite strong emotions, sometimes with dangerous consequences.

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from responsibility. You should be able to express yourself, but you should also recognize the potential harm your words might cause. The world isn’t as black-and-white as “speak while you still can.” It’s about finding a middle ground where expression is free, but society is protected.

26/12/2024 12:21:59 pm

Hi Judith and thank you for modelling the right to dissent. I love the Free Speech Union's strapline on that front: 'Audi alteram partem' meaning, 'Let the other side be heard as well'. I respect and would fight to uphold your right to fundamentally disagree with me. Thank you for sharing such thoughtful reflections too and advocating a stance where 'expression is free, but society is protected'. On that stance, we are in ferocious agreement.

Where we disagree, I think, is on the role, effectiveness and impacts of NCHIs in achieving that goal. In the UK, we already have legislation in place to address actual hate crimes (see: (see: https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crime). NCHIs aren't the same as monitoring potential crimes in order to respond to them effectively if they should materialise - much in the way that anti-terrorism police would rightfully and appropriately do through surveillance.

NCHI records are applied unilaterally by the police, without the requirement of a judicial process - and have been mis-applied repeatedly (see: https://freespeechunion.org/an-orwellian-society-non-crime-hate-incidents-and-the-policing-of-speech/). The effect is to silence dissent on controversial social issues and, thereby, to create a pressure cooker of frustration waiting to explode. An NCHI record can also be devastating to those on whom they are enforced.

So - we would agree on goals, and starkly disagree on methods.

Taking a liberty

Leave a Reply.

Nick Wright

Archives

Categories

Taking a liberty

Leave a Reply.

​Nick Wright

​Archives

Categories

Nick Wright

Archives