2025-10-11
This might set the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons. Perhaps it should be banned as offensive to all wrong-thinking people who make it their business to be egregiously put out by anything that they disagree with?
But the truth is that it reinforces that ancient but excellent principle of British Justice that many thought had been abandoned years ago (although nobody quite knew when exactly ... ).
“The right to freedom of expression, if it is a right worth having, must include the right to express views that offend, shock or disturb"
Pass me my smelling salts!
Still, all may not be completely unfettered:
“A person who acts so as to cause harassment, alarm or distress to another may commit an offence”
Now "harassment" "alarm" and "distress", like "offend" "shock" and "disturb", are not precise in everyday English, so there is wriggle room here; but even so, "may" does not imply "will".
A key point that seems to have been overlooked is that "offence" can be offered but yet not taken, or taken even when not actually offered, whilst alarm and distress are thought to be caused (even if they might be readily feigned), even as one man's harassment might be another's water off a duck's back.
Lumping these terms together is potentially problematic. Still, "harassment" has a legal definition, whilst "alarm" and "distress" seem to require association with "threatening or abusive behaviour" in order to lead to an offence being committed, whilst "intent" must be proven for all three.
So all in all, it looks like a good step backward toward times when sanity once prevailed in our Courts rather more widely than has seemed evident in recent years.
Now, which flag should we run up the pole to celebrate ..?
