In the spirit of free speech, I suppose we have to allow other countries to express their concerns about life in Britain, even though it’s none of their business and is diplomatic bad manners.
However, it is impudent of the Trump administration, currently engaged in dismantling the constitution of the United States, to issue a patronising school report on the state of human rights in the United Kingdom. Every so often, the Americans, whose system of laws owes much to the British, like to tell us we’re no longer a free people. “Sod off” is the instinctive and succinct British reaction to such treatment, but I shall endeavour to elaborate.
In the document, produced by the US state department, Britain is chastised for a human rights scene that has apparently “worsened” over the past year. From the lofty moral heights occupied by Donald Trump, “specific areas of concern” are raised, including restrictions on political speech deemed “hateful” or “offensive”.
The Americans are especially censorious about the way the government responded to the horrendous murder of three children in Southport last year, and the subsequent violence. This constituted, or so we are lectured, an “especially grievous example of government censorship”. The UK is thus ticked off: “Censorship of ordinary Britons was increasingly routine, often targeted at political speech”. Bloomin’ cheek!
What the Americans don’t like is that we have laws against inciting racial, religious and certain other types of hatred. Well, first, tough. That’s how we prefer to run things to promote a civilised multicultural society. Second, they might do well to consider our way, which is not to pretend that there is ever any such thing as “absolute” free speech. Encouraging people to burn down a hotel of refugees is not, in Britain, a price worth paying for “liberty”.
Although never stated explicitly, it seems that the State Department is upset about the now totemic case of Lucy Connolly, colloquially regarded in both the UK and the US as “locking someone up for a tweet”. Connolly was sentenced to 31 months’ incarceration under laws consistent with international human rights obligations, which obviously include the protection of free speech.
It was more than one message on social media that landed Connolly in the dock, the most famous of which went as follows: “Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you’re at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.”
It was up for three hours and read 310,000 times so not trivial. But there’s more. According to the recent court of appeal review of her case, and before the Southport attacks, Connolly posted a response to a video which had been shared online by the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Laxley-Lennon, showing a black male being tackled to the ground for allegedly masturbating in public. She wrote: “Somalian, I guess. Loads of them”, with a vomiting emoji.
On 3 August 2024, five days after the attacks, Connolly posted a further message in response to an anti-racism protest in Manchester: “Oh good. I take it they will all be in line to sign up to house an illegal boat invader then. Oh sorry, refugee. Maybe sign a waiver to say they don’t mind if it’s one of their family that gets attacked, butchered, raped etc, by unvetted criminals. Not all heroes wear capes.”
Two days later, Connolly sent a WhatsApp message to a friend saying: “The raging tweet about burning down hotels has bit me on the arse lol.” She went on to say later that, if she got arrested, she would “play the mental health card”.
So that is some extra background on the case of Lucy Connolly, and nor should we forget that she was sending inflammatory messages during the worst civil disorder in years.
Of course, the great irony about the 2024 riots is that they were caused by what you might call “too much free speech”. The entirely false rumour promoted on social media was that the killer, Axel Rudakubana, was a Muslim asylum seeker who had virtually just got off a boat before setting off to commit a terrorist offence. None of that was true, but it was stated near enough as fact by people “just asking questions” with no official interference or “censorship” whatsoever in free speech Britain.
There was no “cover-up” of the perpetrator’s status because Rudakubana was born in Britain. At his trial, it was established that his massacre was not motivated by any political, religious or racial motive but by an obsession with sadistic violence. Had this propaganda about Rudakubana been banned, a great deal of needless anger, distress, and damage would have been avoided.
And what of America? Where you can be refused entry or deported for your political views, and without due process, violations of the ancient rule of habeas corpus. Where the president rules by decree and can attempt to strike out the birthright clause in the Constitution by executive order? Where the Supreme Court is packed with sympathetic judges who give him immunity from prosecution, and the president ignores court orders in any case.
A land where there is no human rights legislation, no international commitments to the rights of man, where the media is cowed and the universities intimidated? Where the president dictates what is shown in museums, how history is taught and where the historic struggles of people of colour are disparaged as woke nonsense. A country where gerrymandering is a national sport. Where science is being abolished and statisticians sacked for reporting bad news. America is in a state of incipient authoritarian rule and is in no position to criticise anyone about freedom and liberty.
The British should tell them all that, but we’re too polite.
