Slowly, yet perceptibly, free speech is dying in Britain. On July 4, 2024, the people of Britain elected a new government. They did so decisively in terms of seats won, but rather less conclusively with the share of the vote. The new Labour government won a rather staggering 411 out of 650 districts but achieved only 33.7% of the national vote, the lowest share since the Second World War for a party winning a parliamentary majority. The votes on the conservative right of the spectrum split between the mainstream Conservative Party (23.7%) and the populist Reform party (14.3%), allowing victory for an unloved Labour Party. The previous conservative government had, to put it generously, run out of steam and perhaps ideas as well.
Freedom of speech is a precious liberty, hard won with sweat and blood, which can slip away barely noticed until it is too late. Frederick Douglass, the great American abolitionist, in his speech at Boston’s Music Hall in 1860, described free speech as the dread of tyrants and the freedom that despots strike down first. In Western democracies, however, it is rarely a single dramatic action that diminishes our liberties; rather it is the cumulative effects of a series of small steps, which is why we don’t immediately take notice. Here lies the danger for Britain and, most likely, America.
The success of Margaret Thatcher as prime minister (1979–90) was built on the principles of liberty, property, freedom, aspiration, and the rule of law. Thatcher, unlike her successors from both main parties, understood the need to articulate and protect those freedoms. We now appear to have settled into a mentality in which government overreach becomes the norm, reinforcing populist alienation, and our churches sink under doctrinal declension and theological liberalism. Who is left to speak for us?
In the first three months of the new Labour government, three actions were taken to set us on a road of diminished rights: (1) universities were exempted from protecting free speech, (2) there was the promise of an extension of hate laws and the recording of “hate incidents” based on what we think and say, and (3) we’re now closer to a conversion therapy ban that threatens both parental and church liberties.
One of the first acts of the new Secretary of State for Education (in the U.K., the senior government minister in a department is usually styled as Secretary of State), Bridget Phillipson, was to suspend indefinitely the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. This piece of legislation was intended to counter cancel culture by imposing upon universities duties, backed by sanctions, to ensure free speech on university campuses. Now, one might have thought that free speech and the free exploration of ideas—even ideas contrary to received opinion or personal preference—might lie at the heart of the very idea of a university. Yet the speed at which the new government sought to relieve universities of their responsibilities to ensure free speech is itself worrying. A letter from 600 academics protesting the decision to halt the implementation of this Act noted that academics have been sacked, marginalized, or disciplined for refusing to accept the standard establishment line on controversial matters. The Free Speech Union noted that this statement by the new government was posted quietly to a House of Commons website without any opportunity for debate or challenge. Step by step they come.
Second, at the beginning of August 2024, Britain experienced a period of social unrest and rioting. The outcome was quite extraordinary. The unrest arose principally because of long-term alienation of working-class communities owing to the failure of government to control both legal and illegal immigration. I do not support lawbreaking or rioting. But, wow, children, families, the elderly were rounded up and jailed almost overnight while the police failed to act against anti-Israel and Islamist protests, never mind crimes against person and property. Expressing opinions about immigration concerns is now quickly characterized as a “far-right” activity—yet such labelling only stores up more frustration and consequent trouble. Facebook and “X” (Twitter) posts and reposts all became the focus of police attention, with the country’s chief prosecutor, Stephen Parkinson, warning people against reposting so-called hate speech—lest they receive a visit from the police. He also said that the police had dedicated teams whose sole task was to scour the internet and social media. This is nothing short of chilling.
The allegation of what is now referred to as two-tier policing was reinforced by the release in September 2024 of some 1,750 hardened criminals (with a similar number to come) because the jails were full, due in part to the increase in speech-related incarcerations. Footage showed some of those released celebrating with champagne, with others declaring themselves Labour voters for life. One was rearrested the same day for committing sexual assault. There will be more to come.
Moreover, the Home Secretary (Interior Secretary), Yvette Cooper, stated that she would rescind previous guidance that sought to restrict monitoring of so-called non-crime hate incidents (NCHI). I think I am incapable, philosophically, of getting my head around why law enforcement has anything to do at all with something designated “non-crime.” It quite literally is not their job. An NCHI is defined as an act or alleged act that is perceived as motivated by hostility or prejudice. Let’s pause here. Perceived—by whom, one might ask? On the basis of what evidence? Both NCHIs and hate speech legislation do far more than they say on the tin. I rarely come across people in favor of hatred, but the problem is that this type of legislation or guidance seeks to regulate opinion and ideas rather than actions. The effect is that any person whose feelings are hurt can now shout “hate speech” and expect legal action to be taken. True freedom of speech is hence shuttered. Step by step they come.
The third troubling new-government action is its commitment to pursuing a wide-ranging ban on conversion therapy practices. The previous government had got to the position where it viewed the unintended consequences of such a ban as too serious to proceed. It is now back on the agenda. The concern is that these proposals will criminalize conversations between parent and child (for example, a parent counseling a child about dangerous gender identity medical treatments) or prayer in a church as part of counseling. Or the preaching of biblical truths. The advocacy of laws in which the state usurps the role of parents and threatens pastors at prayer and in pulpit have no place in a free society. Step by step they come.
The notion that it is the role of government or other institutions of the state, the police, or the judiciary to monitor the opinions, ideas, and statements of its citizens around perceptions of “hate,” beyond very clear incitements to violence, sets a dangerous precent that threatens our freedoms.
How can we guard against these threats to our liberty?
First, vigilance. We are blessed that organizations such as the Christian Institute, Christian Concern, and the Free Speech Union are active in the legal space holding the establishment to account. We need vigilance for the very reason that each step may seem small or be hidden from view or not affect us personally. Christians believe that liberty—religious, political, and economic—is for the welfare of all people. We must speak up.
Second, education, for both our Christian communities and our fellow citizens. In the United States, many appear to grow up without full awareness of the central vision of the Founding Fathers—not least the First Amendment—indeed, in response to the despotism of the British king! In Britain, neither children nor adults know about Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights. Christians are not taught about biblical principles of limited government. We are imperiled by our ignorance.
Third, prayer. The churches seem paralyzed by inaction. However, we must not lose hope. The Lord has called us to pray for those in authority over us. even as we obey God, not man when laws contradict conscience. We must pray also for our church leaders, bishops, priests, and senior pastors that they may see the urgency of teaching the Lord’s people the origins and central importance of our freedoms.
We should be under no illusion that we are at the thin end of the wedge. The prime minister has also made clear that the government will push forward votes on assisted suicide (they call it “assisted dying,” but we should not be distracted by terminology designed to obfuscate), and they will also be tempted to reinsert into the Online Safety Act the concept of “legal, but harmful”—with government deciding, of course, what is “harmful.”
We must also join hands and make common cause across the oceans. Threats to liberty in one place are usually reflected in another. We should learn lessons, share examples, join in common educational enterprises. And we must also pray for one another, our countries, and our churches, that our liberties may be strengthened rather than diluted.
