Free speech under threat as Britons believe they can no longer speak their mind
Nearly half of those polled (49 per cent) believe people are too easily offended, particularly if they speak out on race and immigration issues, according to research for the Commission for Countering Extremism, which advises the Government.
The more outspoken people's views, the more likely they were to feel constrained by the risk of offending others. Older, white males without a university education are among the groups who feel the most restricted.
The study, based on interviews with 2,500 people, was conducted by Ipsos to establish the state of free speech in Britain.
It follows controversies such as the 2021 protests against a teacher in Batley, West Yorkshire, who received death threats and went into hiding after showing pupils a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed from Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine, during a religious studies lesson.
Similar concerns over the right to freedom of expression and protest have been raised in the aftermath of the Oct 7 Hamas terror attack on Israel and the ensuing Gaza conflict.
More than a third (36 per cent) felt they had to hold back on expressing their views on race or ethnicity, while 32 per cent said they did not feel they could freely speak out on immigration or religious extremism. On asylum and Gaza, 31 per cent felt constrained, rising to 41 per cent for transgender issues.
Groups that were predominantly white, male, older and non-graduate were more strongly in favour of free speech, regardless of the issue, but aat the same time felt more constrained in their ability to freely share their views about most topics.
Nearly half of this group (48 per cent) said they felt they had to restrain their comments on race, far higher than the average of 36 per cent. The same was true on immigration, where 43 per cent felt they had to hold back on their views compared to an overall average among the public of 32 per cent who felt constrained.
Christians were more likely to back the right to free speech, but also more likely than average to feel they had to hold back on expressing their views.
Conversely, women, younger Britons and people from ethnic minorities or non-Christian religions tended to think that people needed to be more sensitive in the way they spoke.
Just under a third (29 per cent) of all those polled agreed that people needed to be more sensitive. But this rose to 34 per cent amongst women, 45 per cent from ethnic minorities and 45 per cent for non-Christians.
By contrast, men, people aged over 65 and those from white ethnicities and Christians were more likely to think that people are too easily offended.
While on average 49 per cent felt people were too easily offended, this rose to 56 per cent of men, 54 per cent of those from a white ethnicity and 59 per cent for Christians. These were nearly double the rates for people from ethnic minorities and non-Christians.
Race and ethnicity was the only topic overall where the balance of opinion was more towards avoiding offence rather than speaking freely (by 42 per cent to 34 per cent), according to the research.
People predominantly held back from expressing their views to avoid causing offence or starting an argument.
Forty-six per cent resisted expressing their views on any religious figure, text or teaching and just 35 per cent held back their political views to avoid causing offence.
Some said they held back because of heightened concerns about their safety. For religious topics, 25 per cent said they restrained themselves because of safety fears, and 17 per cent over political views.
The report said there was a group of people for whom free speech was a significant issue. They represented about 37 per cent of the total sample and were described by researchers as those who were most concerned about the pace of change.
But they were also the group most likely to express 'heightened concerns' about their ability to speak freely about race, immigration, asylum and religious extremism.
Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said: 'The Left's determination to shut down debate around immigration has created a chilling environment for free speech. In this context, a catch-all definition of Islamophobia would be a disaster, worsening the culture of fear that has spread throughout society.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
a minute ago
- Telegraph
Ministers to face down opposition to Telegraph sale
Ministers are preparing to face down opposition to the sale of The Telegraph in a row over foreign state influence. The Government on Thursday confirmed that it will press ahead with a Lords vote next week that will decide whether foreign powers should be allowed to own up to 15pc of British newspapers. The planned legislation is viewed as pivotal to ending the ownership uncertainty that has gripped The Telegraph for more than two years. A proposed takeover led by the US private equity firm RedBird Capital is expected to include a passive stake of up to 15pc for IMI, a media company owned by the vice president of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This week there has been determined lobbying for and against the legislation, which would ease an outright ban on foreign state shareholdings introduced last year. Rumours have swirled in Parliament that Labour would abandon the vote over fear of a highly embarrassing defeat. However, a spokesman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport said: 'Tuesday's House of Lords debate on the Enterprise Act will go ahead as planned.' Opposition to allowing foreign states to invest in newspapers has coalesced around a rare 'fatal motion' tabled by the Liberal Democrats. The Conservative leadership is supporting the Government's plans, but a group of Tory rebels has gathered around Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who has called the proposed legislation 'a systemic threat to a free press'. The plans could also face significant opposition from crossbench peers. Lord Fox, the Lib Dem peer who tabled the fatal motion, said: 'We're working across the House to make sure we do everything we can to stand up to the Government's plan to sell out British press freedoms. 'Foreign states have no place in the UK's newsrooms. The Government should never have brought forward the legislation – but there's a growing group of peers from across the political spectrum who believe it can, and should, be stopped. 'This vote is about protecting a keystone of British democracy. I'm calling on peers to come together across the House and vote this dangerous legislation down.' If approved by a majority of peers, the fatal motion would block the legislation and force the Government to rethink. Such votes are supported very rarely by peers as they spark arguments about the power of the unelected chamber. MPs have already approved stakes of up to 15pc for foreign powers. Earlier this month, the Commons voted in favour of the plans by 338 votes to 79. Almost all the votes against it were Lib Dems. RedBird's planned takeover of The Telegraph is expected to include a passive minority stake for IMI, as well as minority stakes for the Daily Mail owner Lord Rothermere and Sir Leonard Blavatnik, the owner of the major record label Warner Music. IMI had previously sought to be the majority backer of a takeover of The Telegraph alongside RedBird. It was blocked last year following a cross-party outcry, a decision that caused a serious diplomatic rift between Britain and the UAE. The Lib Dems have argued that foreign states should be allowed to own no more than 5pc of a British newspaper, as was originally proposed by the Conservatives when they were in power and blocked the IMI-funded takeover of The Telegraph. This week the Government sought to head off some of the opposition to its proposals by publishing plans to close a loophole.
The Guardian
a minute ago
- The Guardian
Why is it so hard for the authorities to win public trust? Maybe because they keep lying to us
If you were to invent a scandal expressly to convince conspiracy theorists they were right all along, the story of the Afghan superinjunction would be hard to beat. A secret back door into Britain through which thousands of immigrants were brought, under cover of a draconian legal gagging order that helpfully also concealed an act of gross incompetence by the British state? It's a rightwing agitator's dream. 'The real disinformation,' wrote Dominic Cummings on X, a platform notably awash with real disinformation, 'is the regime media.' Yes, that Dominic Cummings. It was hard enough already to counter paranoia about alleged grooming gang cover-ups, policing of immigrant communities or imaginary supposed plots to flood the country with refugees just so they can vote Labour. Now, like stopped clocks fleetingly getting the time right twice a day, the usual suspects will pounce: see, the deep state does lie to you! Meanwhile fantasists of all political stripes and none, whose go-to explanation for why the hated mainstream media mysteriously isn't covering their pet theory is invariably 'there must be a superinjunction', will have a field day. But you don't have to wear a tinfoil hat to find this particular cover-up unnerving. In parliament, the Conservative MP Mark Pritchard asked the defence secretary, John Healey, how anyone could be sure there were no other government superinjunctions active. If there were, he added, presumably Healey couldn't tell him anyway. How does anyone know who to trust, in an era when excess naivety and unwarranted suspicion can both have demonstrably terrible consequences? It's not just a political question. This week, Constance Marten and Mark Gordon were convicted of the gross negligence manslaughter of their newborn daughter Victoria, who died sleeping in a tent on a freezing January night while her parents were on the run from social workers, their families, and authority in general. The couple, whose first four children were already in care, were probably right to fear her being taken from them. But at least she could have lived, if they'd trusted social services enough to engage. The week before, it emerged that a child had died in Liverpool of measles, a completely preventable disease of which there have been continuing outbreaks thanks to a complex mix of complex factors, including vaccine scepticism and mistrust of the medical establishment. (Though it's not known if this poor child was vaccinated – measles can be dangerous for people with compromised immune systems even if they've had the jab – the point of keeping vaccine uptake high is to protect the vulnerable, by preventing outbreaks such as the one currently active in the north-west.) In the US, meanwhile, Donald Trump has enraged his own fanbase by insisting that only 'stupid people' believe there was a government cover-up over the death of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein – a cherished Maga belief Trump seemed happy to stoke back when the idea of a plot to protect some wicked liberal elite suited him. There would be more schadenfreude in seeing the president hoist by his own post-truth petard, if his followers didn't have a proven capacity for violence when angered. What ties these very different stories together is a creeping crisis of faith in institutions from medicine to the law, politics to policing, which has begun to feel actively dangerous. Yet knowing that doesn't make reversing it any easier. I've been thinking about this on and off for months, since joining a thinktank roundtable on restoring public trust that posed some difficult practical questions. My tuppence worth was on rock-bottom levels of trust in the media. But would a return to believing everything you read or hear be healthy? I can't in all conscience say so: not when there are so many underregulated new platforms I wouldn't trust to tell the time of day, and AI fakes are getting so sophisticated. Trusting the media less is logical, maybe even necessary, in the circumstances. Yet rational scepticism can all too quickly spiral into blanket suspicion of everything and everyone, justified or not. No society can function like that. One answer is that where trust is no longer automatic, powerful institutions can earn it back by submitting to clear checks and balances. And that's exactly what didn't happen with the Ministry of Defence superinjunction. Faced with a catastrophic leak – a soldier emailing a spreadsheet of names that put up to 100,000 Afghans potentially at risk – the then Conservative government had a moral duty to protect those endangered. Though it's likely many were already identifiable as Taliban targets via other means, it wasn't unreasonable to seek a brief temporary news blackout while organising an evacuation, followed by full public disclosure at the earliest safe opportunity. But it should have been brief – nothing like a 600-day injunction – and crucially parliament's intelligence and security committee (ISC) should have been brought into the loop to ensure it was. Invented to provide democratic oversight in sensitive situations when briefing every last gossipy backbencher is impractical, the ISC could have acted as guarantors of the public's right to know. Instead, it was left to an incoming Labour defence secretary to question whether spending billions on secretively righting past wrongs was the best use of public money, prompting a review that collapsed the whole house of cards. Trust in the British state, at home and abroad, will inevitably be the casualty. While about 24,000 of those named in the leak are already in Britain or on the way, the rest are being expected simply to accept the revised view that they're safe where they are. Amid the chaos, as the former veterans minister Johnny Mercer points out, it's likely some with frankly tenuous connections to the UK gained sanctuary essentially for being victims of British ineptitude, while some Afghan special forces soldiers who bravely fought the Taliban alongside the British (and were promised they'd be looked after as a result) have been puzzlingly left behind. That is the kind of injustice that echoes down generations. Back home, meanwhile, ministers must now brace for far-right attempts to exploit this scandal, and for some uncomfortable questions. Was the superinjunction really about saving lives, sparing political blushes, avoiding inflaming already high tensions over immigration or all of the above? And when exactly would the MoD have voluntarily confessed, if a handful of journalists – the same old legacy media that apparently nobody trusts – hadn't got wind of what happened? For that's the paradox, right there: sometimes the alternatives to putting your faith in an institution which has previously failed you – be it social services, doctors, journalists or conventional politics – are even worse. Trust everybody, and you might get taken for a fool. Trust nobody, and you become the fool. Unfortunately, there's no easy way round that. Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist
BBC News
a minute ago
- BBC News
Cambridgeshire Police recruit 30 extra community officers
A police force has recruited an extra 30 community officers after it received more funding from the Police made the announcement during a launch in Peterborough, where the first 10 community officers will be team, which will be based in the centre and eastern sector of the city, will see two extra sergeants and eight additional Constable Nick Dean said: "This begins the start of neighbourhood policing enhancement across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough." The move is part of the Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee launched by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer on a visit to the county in Labour government is aiming to put named local officers into each neighbourhood and boost police ranks by 13,000 by Dean said he hoped the extra officers would build on the community work already being done by other local teams."What I hope to achieve is extra visibility, extra engagement, really dealing with the crimes and the incidents that matter to our communities," said the chief constable."Our neighbourhood teams do a fantastic job and have done a fantastic job, but this really does enhance that offer to our communities." Sgt Chris Arnold is part of the new city centre Neighbourhood Uplift team, who with another sergeant will be leading eight constables and a police community support officer."What I'm really looking forward to is increasing [officer] visibility in the city," he said. "It's going to be hugely impactful for the city to see an extra host of police officers to try and keep our streets safe."The force said the officers would provide increased coverage and visibility as police continue to work with partners and local communities to tackle key issues such as anti-social behaviour, retail crime, drug dealing and knife crime. Danielle Campbell, 52, lives in Paston, Peterborough, and said more officers were needed. Her friend had a handbag snatched as they were unloading her car outside her house."I don't feel safe going out at night, and I'm from London, and I felt safe there," she said. She said it was not the police's fault, as it was stretched, but wondered how an extra 30 officers could impact the county. "Unfortunately it's the little crimes that are getting left," she said. "If there were more police I would feel safer, it's just a deterrent." Mary Skyers, 75, who lives in Bretton said she would welcome more officers walking the streets rather than in cars "flying past", as they did in the past. "It's a reassurance for a lot of people, especially elderly people," she said."There's a lot of crime, knives and everything that goes on. You do need them." Daniel Slack, 26, from Peterborough, said he has had "good and bad experiences with the police" in the wants them to do more about the drug use and prostitution where he lives, and would welcome a better police presence. "The area I'm in, I've seen people robbed. I've been robbed at cash machines, seen people get attacked, especially due to drug use."And if there was more police hopefully that would prevent that happening." Follow Cambridgeshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
