Policing in the UK puts the Gestapo to shame.
Beyond Orwell and Kafka: British police can arrest a citizen or have them placed on a “hate register” if a social media post or other action is perceived as “ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment or dislike.” It you think this couldn’t happen in Canada, look no further than the Carney government’s proposed Bill C-9.
U.K. POLICING OF HATE CRIMES SHOULD BE A WARNING TO CANADA
MICHAEL HIGGINS:
“If you want to find out how bad it can be when police are allowed to decide what is hateful, look no further than the U.K., where an average of 30 people a day are arrested for offensive comments.
“Then there are the people — about 13,000 a year — who are not arrested but put on a register for “non-crime hate incidents.” [They can] get on that register if a neighbour “perceives” they are being targeted.
“With a new bill, C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, the Liberals would hand over to the police the power to decide what is hate. The bill would repeal the requirement for the attorney general to lay hate charges, “streamlining the process for law enforcement to more effectively address such cases,” says the bill, rather innocently.
“By removing this step, law enforcement would be able to act quickly to counter hate speech and protect communities,” it says.
“Joanna Baron, executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, worries that the new bill could impact free speech and lead to more prosecutions.
““Creating new offences for hate-motivated crimes and lowering safeguards like attorney general oversight is unnecessary and invites excessive prosecutions,” she says in a statement .
“The absurdity of British police heavy-handedness in hate cases was on full display when an officer visited Deborah Anderson, a cancer patient undergoing treatment, at her London home this year because of comments she made on Facebook (the officer refused to say what they were).
“The feisty, self-identified “elderly” American woman — video here — refused to be intimidated and told the policeman she had done nothing wrong (he appeared to agree that she had not broken the law).
““We believe you’ve written something on Facebook and upset someone,” said the policeman, to which Anderson, quite rightly, questioned, “You’re here because somebody got upset?”
““If you admitted it was you who wrote the comment, made an apology to the person …” said the officer before being interrupted by Anderson, who forcible told him, “I’m not apologizing to anybody.”
“It was at this point that things turned a little nasty with the officer threatening what is increasingly being used by the police as a bullying tactic: Anderson was told she could be “called in for an interview.”
This is a voluntary “chat” but if the person refuses to comply then police can arrest them.
“This is beyond Orwell and Kafka; this is British police trying to bully a nation into silence with repressive and intimidating tactics.
“Thankfully, in this case there was an outcry and the British Free Speech Union got involved. Later, Thames Valley Police, the district involved, put out a self-serving statement , saying, “After engagement with both parties, no further action was taken. It is our duty to respond to allegations of threats or violence.”
“But that’s wrong and Thames Valley could take a lesson from Anderson who told the officer, “You know whether I have broken the law. You can judge for yourself before you even show up at my door.”
“And she’s right. Police can use their discretion.
“In response to the mealy-mouthed statement from police, British lawyer Colin Wynter tweeted , “No. You do not have to send an officer to ‘follow up’ on a ‘report’. You can look at the complaint, assess its plausibility/seriousness/harm potential & make an operational decision to do nothing, as frequently happens with actual crimes & as you have now done with this one.”
.
“But this is now standard operating procedure for British police: the “We’re just doing our job” defence. But they are exceeding their job, they are actively policing comments they disagree with.
“For even more extreme police heavy-handedness, take the case of comedy writer Graham Linehan, co-creator of Father Ted and The IT Crowd, who was arrested at Heathrow Airport this month by five armed officers because of tweets.
.
“Linehan, an advocate for safe spaces for women who has taken a strong position against trans activism, wrote in one tweet, “If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.”
“The arrest put police on the defensive again, and the next day the Metropolitan Police commissioner, Mark Rowley, claimed officers were only acting within the law.
“Officers had “reasonable grounds” to believe an offence had been committed, he said.
.
““I don’t believe we should be policing toxic culture wars debates and officers are currently in an impossible position,” he said, calling for the law to be changed.
“But as the elderly chemotherapy patient Anderson pointed out, and lawyers agree with her, police can use their judgment. They don’t need to be knocking on doors demanding apologies, or lining up with guns to arrest tweeters getting off planes.
.
“By removing attorney general oversight in hate cases in Canada, the Liberals are opening the door to the kind of zeal exhibited by the police in Britain, where arrests for offensive posts on social media and other online platforms now average 30 a day.
.
“The British non-crime hate incidents (NCHI) are particularly insidious because they are based on whether an individual or group “perceives” they have been subject to “hostility or prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or transgender identity, even if no criminal activity has taken place.”
“And the bar for these hate incidents is very low, since the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) suggests hostility includes “ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.”
.
“Unfriendliness? Being unfriendly in the U.K. is now a hostile act.
.
“Removing attorney general oversight may mean police can act quicker in Canada, but if the British experience is any guide, swiftness may come at the expense of justice and common sense.”
Michael Higgins, National Post
Published September 22, 2025
Photo provided by the National Post
Why bother with actual words written or oral? Wrongthink is the solution. But how do we detect wrongthink? It is not written nor oral, it’s in the mind. We need machines like in Bladerunner or Minority Report that can assess wrongthink and prosecute those who think wrongly. Is that where we are headed? Of course it is always to help the children or prevent hurt feelings. Such noble goals.